THE KEY' WEST.
age, notwithstanding heat and steam. It was easy to have put iil a clause providing for the cleansing of the vessel in a specified man:ner, or for taking only specified cargo, or for freeing the vessel from petroleum damage to specified cargo. . The motion for a reargument is denied.
See 8 FED. REP. 624.
THE KEY WEST.(OireuU OOUf't, E. D · .Louisiana.
FIRE AT PIER.. Where a tug-boat and the river salving boat both came to tho.relief of a steamer on fire at a pier, arriving at about the same time, the tug endeavoring to pull out into the stream a vessel lying beside the burning vessel, Ml,d, that the river salving boat, by throwing water on .the veS3el in dangef, rendered meritorious service, and of value to the salved vesseL
2. SAME-RIVAL SALVORS.
Though two salving boats did not work in harmony nor to the best advantage, and the efforts of one embarrassed t}le other, but not intentionally, 8I)jj there was and effort, yet the service was meritorioWl . and of value to the salved vessel,. .
SA.M:E-DISTRmlJTION OF AWARD.
Each case of salvage must stand on its own merits, with regard to the rate of distribution of the sum awarded, betw;een owners and crew, but regard be paid to the value and time of service of each.
Appeal in Admitalty. M. M. Cohen, for libellants. O. B. San sum, for claimants. PARDEE, C. J. This suit is for salvage serviC"es in case of fire in the port of New Orleans. The following facts are undisputed.
(1) That on the morning of January 5, 1881, the steam-boat Win. Fagan, lying at the wharf at the head Of Bienville street, in this city, took fire and soon burned. (2) That the steam-boat Key West at the time lay of the Fagan, the bows of the two boats about six feet apart, and the sterns a much greater distance apart, the Key West being below the Fagan, with the wind and eddy both going upstream. (3) That the alarm of fire was ringing the boat's bell. as fast and as given by the Key West, the hard as he could. (4) That in response to the. call the tug-boat Charlie Wood and· the river salving boat Protector came to the assistance of the burning vessel; arriving there about the same time... (t) The Wood, coming in on the lower side of the Key West, made fast and pulled theK:eyWest out
*Reported by Joseph P.Hornor, Esq.· orthe riew Orleans
in the stream and away from the burning Fagan, and then her over the river. (6) The Protector came in on the upper side of the Key West, as appears, in respon!le to the call of one of the city firemen on board, and striking her nose against the port quarter, near the stern of the Key West, pushed her against the wind and eddy further away from the Fagan, and pushed so hard that the Wood was embarrassed in her efforts to pull the' Key West out in the stream. (7) At this time the Key West was on fire, or next to it; she was smoking from the heat, if not actually from fire; her pa,il1t wits blistering, and all concede that the screen on the port side took fire then or soon after. (8) At the same time the Protector, from her forward pumps, threw water on the Key West, the libellants claiming all the forward part of the cabin, where the scorching and fire undou1?tedly,were,and the claimants claiming that it was on the rear and stern of the boat, where there was no fire. (9) The Key West was worth $15,000, and the owners have Settled the Wood's claim for salvage by paying the sum of $800.
On these facts there would seem to be no doubt that theProtect6r services.to the,Rey West, and the court would, only have to fix the sum to be allowed under the general rules recognized in srtch but the respondents object that the Protector and her crew did not render any valuable service; but, on the contrary, they when the danger was greatacted in bad faith by not throwing est; and that they purposely embarrassed the efforts made to get the Key West out of danger, and that they'have magnified and enlarged all the circumstances of the danger, and the dama.ge and risk, with a view of obtaining large salvage. An examination of the evidence does not satisfy me that these charges aro sustained. The two salving boats did not work in harmony, nor perhaps to the best advantage, and the efforts of one embarrassed the other; but I do not find this was intentional. There was excitement and rivalry and misdirected effort, but not malicious bad conduct; and, on the whole evidence, I am satisfied that the services of the Protector were meritorious, and of value to the Key West. Notwithstanding this, the services of both the boat and 'crew were without risk ,or danger, and should grade very low as sal. vage services. As an original proposition, if the whole case were before me; I should think that 5 per cent. on the value of the boat aided, or $750, would be ample for both tug-boats and crews, giving 3 per cent., or $450, to the Wood, and 2 per cent., or $300, to the Protector. As the Wood 'has been settled with,' and is not before the court, my views will be carried out by giving the Protector $300. The mode or rate of distribution to the Protector and her crew fixed in the district court, three-fourths to the boat and one-fourth to the crew, in proportion to their monthly wages, seeIils to be satisfactory to the parties interested, and I will follow that without commit.
myself to tbe j llstice of it. The fa.ct is that each case of salvage must stand on its own merits, with regard to the rate of distribution uetweenowners and crew; but regard should be paid to the value and time of service of each, and it should be kept in mind that iron boats and steam maehinerycannot assume responsibility or display heroism. The amount allowed in the district court was evidently based on the amount paid the Wood, and on the proposition of settlement alleged on the part of an insurance agent__ The Wood was paid too much, and the proposition of settlement was unauthorized. It is hardly necessary to say that the facts in this case are decidedlydifferent from those in the ease of The Protector v. The Choteau, decided last term. Let adecres be entered in favor of libellants and interven.ing libellants for $300 s'alvage, against the steam-boat Key West, and for costs of suit;.p,nd. 4istril;mting said salvage,tlu;ee-fourths to the intervening libellants, the New IIarbor Protection Company, and onefourth to the master an.d tlrew of the Protector.
(Circuit Court,1p. D. New YorM. June 13,1881.)
Where two steamers were approaching each other on Murses not involving a risk of collision, and one of them changes her course to one involving a risk of collision, when in close prOXimity, without giving sufficient previous notice in time, and without obtaining the assent of the other steamer to such change, held, that she was in fault, and that a libel brought by her for damages for the collision should be dismissed.
R. D. Benedict and E. L. Owen, for libellant. T.-E. Stillman and W. Mynderse, for claimant. BLATCHFORD, C.' J. In this case I find the following facts:
The steamer Bermuda and the steam-lighter A. T. Nichols came into collision in the North river at a point about 300 feet out from and a little below pier 1, on the seventh of December, 1877, in the afternoon, in daylight. The Bermuda was an ocean screw steam-ship, of 746 tons, Blitish register. Her length was about 240 feet, and she was loaded at the time of the collision so that she drew about 10 feet of water. Her deck at the stem was about 16 feet from the water, and at the stern about eight feet from the water. The top of the rail was four feet above the deck. The bridge ran athwartships about midway between the stem and the stern, and was six feet above