THE LORD CLIVE.
THE LORD CLIVE.-
Penn8ylvania, January 4, 1882.)
PILOTAGE- STATUTES OF PENNSYI,VANIA- DUTY TO ACCEPT THE FmST PILOT WHO OFFERS.
Under the Pennsylvania statute of March 29, 1803" the master of a vessel, of the draught mentioned in the act, is bound to accept the first duly-qualified pilot who offers his services, and this provision of the statute is not repealed by the subsequent statute of March 24, 1851.
Libel by'the Society for Distressed and Decayed Pilot,s against the· steamship Lord Clive, to recover an amount equal to full pilotage 'of the vessel as a penalty for the refusal of the steamship to accept the services of a pilot. 'The penalty was claimed under the act of assembly of Pennsylvania 'of March 29, 1803, (4 Sm. Laws, 74,) which provides as follows:
"rhe pilot who shall first offer himself to any inward-bound ship or vessel shall be entitled. to take charge thereof, proYided his license shall authorize him to pilot ships or vessels of such draught of water; and it shall be the duty of such pilot, if required, to exhibit his license to the master or commander of such ship or v-essel, and in case the draught of water of such ship or vessel shall be greater than such pilot shall be licensed to carry, he may, nevertheless, with the consent of the master, take charge of such ship or vessel until a pilot duly qualified shall offer; and if such qualified pilot shall offer before such ship or vessel shall have passed Reedy island he shall be received, and the former pilot entitled to pilotage according to the distance he may hiwe conducted such ship or vessel, and the latter to the residue of the pilotage, which shall be ascertained by the master-warden for the time being; and the master or commander of. such ship or vessel shall display the signal for a pilot heretofore used, until a pilot duly qualified shall offer; and if the said master or commander shall neglect or refuse so to do, or shall refuse or neglect to receive a pilot duly qualified, the master, owner, or consignee of such ship or vessel ,shall forfeit and pay to the warden aforesaid a slim equal to the half pilotage of such ship or vessel, to the use of the Society for the Relief of Di!:.tressed and Decayed Pilots, their widows and. children, to be recovered as pilotage in the manner hereinafter directed." By the act of March 24, 1851, (P. L. 229,) it was further provided: "Every vessel arriving from or bound to any foreign port or place * * * shall be obliged to take a pilot. * * * And if the master of any such vessel, being licensed as a coasting vessel, and of the burden' of 100 tons or more, shall refuse or neglect to take a pilot, the master or owner or consignee of
-Reported uy P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
such vessel shall forfeit and pay the sum eqnal to half pilotage of such vessel; and if such vessel be not licensed as aforesaid, then and in such case the master, owner. or consignee thereof shall forfeit and pay the full pilotage thereof,"
On ,Tune 20. 1881, the steam-ship Lord Clive, bound to Philadelphia on a voyage from LiverpOOl, was spoken by the pilot-boat E. C. Knight, and a dnly-licensed pilot was sent on board. The master of the steam-ship refused to accept the services of this pilot, on the gronnd that he never before had acted as pilot to an ocean steamer. The master was then given another pilot out of the same boat, who piloted the steam-ship and received full compensation. This libel was ·then filed to recover the penalty of full pilotage for refusal to receive the first pilot who offered. Albert E, Peterson and W. W. Wiltbank, for libellant. H. G. Ward and Morton P. Flenry, for respondent. BUTLER, D. J. First. Does the act of 1803, (of Pennsylvania,) require vessels to accept the first duly.qualified pilot who offers his services, and inflict the penalty of half pilotage for refusal? Second. What effect has the act of 1851 on the claim involved? These are the only questions raised by counsel; and I will consider no other. The twenty-first section of the act of 1803 authorizes the pilot who shall first offer himself, having the proper license, to take charge of the vessel. "The pilot who shall first offer himself to any inwardbound vessel shall be entitled to take charge thereof, provided his license shall authorize him to pilot a ship or vessel of such draught." The right thus conferred on the pilot necessarily imposes on the vessel a corresponding obligation to allow its exercise. The subsequent provision, inflicting a penalty for "refusal to accept a pilot," has reference to this pilot,-the first duly qualified, offering his scrvices,whether on the vessel's entrance of the bay, or at any subsequent time before passing "Reedy Island." The language" if the master or commander shall refuse lit lit '* to receive a pilot duly qualified," clearly means if he shall refuse the pilot whom the statute hail authorized to Jlerform the service. Such refusal brings him not only within the spirit of the statute, but also within the letter. He has, (in such case,) "refused to receive a pilot duly qualified." That he may have taken another is unimportant; the fact remains that he has refused one, and the particular one on whom the right to perform the service is conferred by the statute.
THE MARY STEWART.
The act of 1851 has no effect on the question under consideration, except to increase the penalty for such refusal. It contains no repealing clause, and its provisions are entirely consistent with so much of the statute of 1803 as imposes the obligation to accept the first duly-qualified pilot offering his services. A decree must therefore be entered for the amount claimed.
(lJtBtrict (Jourt, E. D. Virginia.
December 27, 1881.)
ADMIRALTY-ToRTS ON LAND NOT COGNIZABLE IN-PERSONAL INJURIES.
An injury done to a man, while he is on a wharf, by a bale of cotton which is beinlt hoisted aboard a ship loading at the wharf, but which falls before it reaches the ship's rail and strikes him, is not cognizable in theadffii· fatly. .
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION CANNOT BE CoNFERRED BY STATE STATUTES.
Nor can jurisdiction over such a tort be given by a state statute. 3.
CHARTER-PARTY-ACTION DEFEATED FOR WA'NT OF PRIVITY.
Under the contract between the ship and the charterers the latter are to employ and pay for the stevedoring, and the ship is to furnish the tackle and falls by which the loading is to be done. Under this contract the ship furnishes a rope, which breaks after a short use of it by the stevedores, and one of the employes of the stevedore is injured by the falling of a cotton bale. Held, that there was no privity between him and the ship, he not being a party to or interested in the contract of charter-party, nor any violation of any duty towards him, and that consequently he could not maintain an action against the ship or her owners.
In June, 1881, the ship Mary Stewart was chartered by Reynolds Bros., of Norfolk, to load with cotton. By the charter-party, Reynolds Bros. agreed to furnish and pay for the stevedoring, and the ship agreed to furnish the tackle necessary for loading. The officers of the ship had no control over the manner in which the stevedoring was carried on, but the ship was entirely under the control of the stevedores while loading. The ship furnished a three-inch rope. One end of this rope was fastened to an engine which stood on the wharf and furnished the hoisting power. The rope was then passed. through a pully attached toone of the masts of the ship, and the other end was fastened to the cotton which was being hoisted aboard. After the rope had been used a short time it broke near the engine, and one of the bales of cotton which was being hoisted fell and seri-