bled by fever, and libelants, Thomas McColley and others, who were passengers on the vessel, rendered sundry services, in the way of paying out cables, fastening and raising anchors, and the like, although they had opportunities for leaving her. On the rise of the tide the steamer came off by means of her own. engines, after lightening by throwing her coal overboard: R. Inge Smith and W. O. Gaynm-, for libelants. Austill &; Ervin and W. D. McKinstry, for claimant. TOULMIN, J., (after stating the/acts as above.) The crew of lit vessel rescued or assisted cannot claim salvage for any assistance they may have rendered in preserving the vessel, in the absence of special circumstances; as, for instance, where the ship has been finally abandoned by the master, and the crew recapture or take possession of her, and navigate her into a port of safety. If the vessel get upon a rock, the seamen must stay by and assist in saving her, and that without having any claim for salvage, unless they have been previously discharged. Nor can passengers on board of the vessel rescued. as a general rule, any more than the crew, claim salvage for any assistance they may give in preserving the vessel. They will not be entitled to salvage in the·event of their voluntarily remaining on board and doing anything to save the ship. They are entitled to salvage only when they perform extraordinary services, such, forinstance, as where the ship is abandoned by the master, and the crew, or a part of the crew, and the passengers assist in bringing the vessel into a port of safety. The passengers will be entitled to share with the crew in any salvage remuneration if they have joined with the crew in rendering the services for which salvage is awarded; My opinion is that the libelants in this case are not entitled to any salvage compensation-First, because, on their own evidence, they fail to show that they performed such extraordinary service as gives them a right to salvage; and, secondly, because, considering the whole evidence, it fails to satisfy me that the property was benefited by their exertions. Salvage being the compensation allowed to persons by whose assistance a ship or cargo is saved from imminent peril, if the property is not benefited by the exertions of the salvors, they can claim no compensation as salvage. And passengers are not entitled to any compensation in the nature of a quantum meruit any more than the crew of the vessel is. Their relation to the ship is such that there is no such thing as a claim for meritorious services recognized by the law. They are under an obligation, as long as -they voluntarily remain on board, to do what they can to save the vessel, the only compensation they are entitled to claim is that for salvage for extraordinary services performed, such as I have already alluded to. The case in 1 Brown, Adm. 68, (The Sailm-'s Bride,) cited in argument, was where there was a claim by the owner of a steam"tug .against a vessel which was aground. The master of. the tug, being into draw.her formed that ahe wall desirous of being hauled off, from the place where she was aground. The attempt was fruitless. The ·court held that no compensation as salvage could be awarded, but. that
the master was entitled to someCOIQpensation. The learned judge said that "as.an effm,'t. w&S made in good;faith by the .master of the tug, and with were believed to be adequate, se",eralhours having been laboriously employed in his efforts to remove the vessel,-one cable beingbroket18i1}d. another cut in trying to accomplish the object,-he was inclined to think the master of the tug entitled to some compensation in the nature of a quantum meruit." Cqlppensation for the time employed and for the effort made that would be reasonable, and for which the law implied a promise on the part of the owner of the vessel to pay. It will beoQserveq; that there was no obligation resting on the master of the tug to m!lke:theeffort to assist the vessel, or to render the service. He had no .relation to the ship. .He was a stranger to her. Herein is the distinction between the case in 1 Brown, Adm., and the one under consideration. But besides this, a decree is not authorized for compensation, in tb,e naturePfa quantum 'meruit,without some proof of the reasonable value ofthe services rendered. Thera is none in this case. Again; where services are, at the tilI;le they are rendered, intended as a they cannot subsequently be made the basis ofaclaimforcomAn action for./3uch compensation must be based on a promor implied, to pay it. The evidence in this (lase satisfies me that, at the time the services were rendered by the libelants, they had nQin.t!'lntic:>n ofcha,rging fQr them. They were gratuit01.1sly rendered. The liqelantsshould be. commended the willing and meritorious spirit shown1;ly: their conduct on.the occasion, but, in my judgment, they are not entitled, under the I/l.W, to compensation for theservic!3B rendered,. whether they were efficient or trivial. The libel must therefore be dismissed, at libelants' cost.
TaETAYLOR DICKSON. 1 BAKER SALVAGE
tI. THE TAYLOR
;(DiBtrlct Gout-t, B.D. Vt'rginia. February
A worth Vli th her cargo $86,800, lost her maIn and mizzen masts, at sea, and; after running down the coast, anchored off Chlcamicomico beach. near Wimble shoals, on the North' Carolina coast,and hoisted a signal of distress, whicbremained ppJor several hours. The BakerSalviLge Company, a.. professional :wrecking company, with.headquarters. at Norfolk, Virginia, on. hearing of.the location. and condition onhe vessel by telegraph, sent a tug valuedat:$80,OOO, which. after great riSk, and in bad weather and heavy seas, took her·IH ow'. anQ., brougll..t her to Norfolk; the expedition t.a.k.in g about .two. days. The time In pecember. Held, that $8,600 we.s a proper salva.ge.. '. '. . awo.rd.·· . ""
Reported by.Robert M.: Bughes, Esq., of the Norfolk bar.·