dicated by some Dlote and appropriate words. 'l'aylor v. Liverpool, etc., Co. L. R. 9 Q. B. 546, 550. The libelant is entitled to judgment, with costs. Unless the damage be agreed upon, a refexence may be taken to ascertain the amount.
(bistrictCourt,N. D. New York. IBB3.)
SALVAGE-AwA.RDS ,FOR PROMPT AND ABLE SERVICE.
'Itiethe growing polley <lfthe ad!Uiralty, ,and especially where the salved vessel is derelict, to make liberal awards for prompt and gallant service; amounting,in many instances, to more than half of the net value of the property saved.
2.. ,SAllE_ADJUST;MENT O.F CLAIMS OTH¥R THAN ,THOSE OF THE LIBELANT. In an action for where there are other claims than those of tIre i'ibelant growing out' of the same occurrence, and where it is obviously for the advantage of all concerned, admiralty courts, in granting an award, will eJl:t!lud it so aato adjust and settle all such other elailllS bv one and the same Buit. ,
R H. WilliamB,
S; D. Bentl.ey, fOl' claimant. COXE, J. The Collins Bay Rafting & Forwarding Company, the libelant in this action, is a Canadian corporation engaged in towing, wreoking, and relieving distressed vessels upon the river tH. Lawrenoe and the lakes. At about 2 o'clock on the morning of August 6, 1881, the Flower City, a steamer of about 217 tons burden, was disoovered floating down the river, below Clayton, derelict, and wrapped in flames. The steamer was hopelessly on fire; every effort to save her had been exhausted. Fear lest the flames should destxoy the buildings of the town had impelled the oitizens to cut her loose from her moorings. The crew then abandoned her, and, with nothing but the wind and theourrent to direot her course, she floated down the river,doomed, apparently, to inevitable destmction. All who saw her at this time, the crew included, supposed that she would burn to the water's edge and sink, a worthless wreck. In these circumstances, the libelant's tug, McArthur, which happened to be lying, with steam up, a mile or so distant, came to the rescue. She was admirably manned and equipped for such service, and after fOUl' or five houra of arduous and iucc136ant exertion on the
TlIE FLOWER CITY.
part of the master and crew, involtingilkill, and attended with da.nger to both life and property, the fire, if not completely subdued, was brought under absolnte control. The steamer was towed back to' Clayton, moored at the dook,'ll.Iul surrendered to her master. In her then condition she was worth-$4,000. The tug was valued at $17,000 or $18,000. That many of the conditions upon whioh the courts base liberal rewards in salvage oases are presented here, oannot, I think be suceassfully disputed. Viewed in the light of precedent, the libelant certainly presents a very meritorious demand. The steamer was derelict, and on fire,-on fire at night,-and at a point where no assistance could reasonably be e x p e c t e d . . , It cannot, as is frequently the case, be contended that the steamer would, in any event, have been saved. The tug was the only vessel that could come to her assistance. The work was well and bravely done. There was actual danger from fire, and apprehended danger from escaping steam and bursting boilers. The success was positive, and $4,000 of property was rescued from certain destruction. It is the growing policy of the admiralty, and especially wh'ere the salved vessel is derelict, to make liberal awards for prompt and gallant servo, ice; amounting, in many instances, to more than half of the net value of the property saved. Having in view all the circumstances of this case, I am: of the opinion that, for the whole service rendered, $1,400 would be a fa.ir and reasonable allowance. To award much less would be .to ignore the well-settled principles upon which remuneration for salvage service depends_ Although judgment is l:1emanded simply for the amount due to the libelant, it is obviously for the advantage of all concerned that every claim growing out of this occurrence should be adjusted and settled,. in the present suit. Under the liberal and elastic system of p.leading and procedure in the admiralty courts, no valid reason is suggested why this cannot be accomplished. The libel should be amended by bringing in the master and crew of the steam-tug, and the above amount should then be divided among all interested parties. As before stated, relieving disabled vessels was part of the ness of the libelant; the McArthur was fitted up for that purpose, and, presumably, the crew were employed with reference to it. These cousiderations, together with others before adverted to, entitle tho libelant to an award 'of $1,000. Of the remaining $400, the master
should have $100, the mate, $75, and the balance should be divided among the other members' of the crew in proportion to the rate of their wages, respectively. Unless the amounts are agreed upon and full releases filed within 30 days, &.commissioner may be appointed to ascertain and report the names and wages of the crew, and the sum due to each. Upon the payment of the amount above stated---$1,400-into court, together with the libelant's costs,-which are not to include the costa incurred by reason of the amendment or reference above suggested,-all liens and claims a.gainst the libeled steamer are to be discharged.
See The Sandringham, 10 FED. 'REP. 556, and note, 584.
THE GRAN CANARIA,
(District Oourt,8. D. NC'/l)York. June 8,1883.)
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT--CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
Upon an ordinary contract of affreightment a vessel is bound to carry goods under deck, and is responsilJle for any loss of goods carried on deck without the owner's consent.
SAME-" ON DECK."
Upon such a contract, where a bill or laetlDg was given Wltll the words" on deck" written in red ink by the of the vessel, and the goods were carried on deck, and necessarily jettisoned on the voyage, held, upon conflicting testimony, that the words" on deck" were written in after the bills of lading had bel,'n submitted to the libelant's correspondents in New York, who at. tended to the shipping of the goods, and without their assent or the assent of the libelant; and that the vessel was liable for the loss.
Held, also, that the libelant's correspondents in New York, who shipped the goods, had no authorlty, or apparent authority, to modify the contract of af. freightmimt so as to permit carriage of the goods on deck.
It being claimed that by custom the own.ers of the vessel had a right, under Buch a contract, to carry the goods on deck by submitting to a charge for the extra insurance, and giving a rehate for difference of freight, held, that the custom was not sufficiently established by proof, and if proved would be invalid and illegal, as unreasonable and in conflict with the terms of the c:ontract.
Blttler, Stillman &: Hubbard, for libelant. A. O. Sttlter and R. D. Benedict, for claimants.