The form of the decree the, gross. amount awarded, with furwill be in favor of ther directions that the said sum be distributed to the different named libelants in tbeamountshtlretofore adjudicated to each.
lingtor., 137 U. S. - , 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 138.
,,' i" . '
& O. R. R. Co.
(D£BWLct CO'Urt, E. D. New
York. December 19,1890.)
',' "As·thesteam.lship Holland was lying at her pier, a sudden firebrbke out Gin the aldeo,f the pier opposite to where the steamer lay. The ot1lcer in oharge of the requested a tug lying near to towthe steam-ship away, and shortly aft erwardB anotner was slgll81ed by ihe steam-ship and took another line, but, get;, ' ting into such a 8S a,1;)le to brillg but little power to, bear, a third tUIl , came to her assistance. Under power of thes.e three tugs, and with two additional "tugakeepin/t her off from the pier, the steam4ship was moved oUt of danger. The fife department, with: twelve engines two fire came tl? the·fire soon after it started. The steamer could have been warped across the shp by her donkey engines, whloh had steam up. The service of the tugs lasted 'some two hours. ,WithberQ&rgothe steamer. was, wort!). $600,000. Belg, that the.llervicewas a salvage service, in which the value of the property saved was great, but the peril mllillll'ate. andU;500 was awarded to the tugs in proportiOn to their relative merits.
ON PIER-TOWING ENDANGERED VESSEL-AWARD.,
'In AdmiraltY'. 'Consolidatedsuit to recover salvage. :Hi/ln.M Zabriskie, for the Howard Carroll. , Wirtgj' 8houdy & Putna:rn,for the John Fuller. ' , ''Pra'Cy, MacFarland,''Boardman & Platt, for the A. C. Rose. 'Mattirnft Smith, for the Henry T. Sisson. ,Peter S: Carter,for the George L. Hammond. John (Jhetwood,' for the'Holland.
. ]3EIq:DI<:;r, J. This is t\',consolidated action in wqich the owners and crews, of five steam-tugs seek to recover salvage for services rendered the steam.:ship Holland on the 7th day of December, 1889. The Holland was a, large steamer belonging to the National Steam-Ship Company which had just arrived from sea and been moored on the north side of her pier in the North river. Soe had no steam on. With her cargo she was concluded to be worth $600,000. About dinner time 'on of the; 7th day of December, 1889, fire broke out in the, upper deck of pier-pouse on the pf the pier opposite to that where the steamer The fire was sudden and proved disastrous, five lives being lost, tl1e'pier-shed' for part destroyed. As soon as the fire broke out the officer in charge of the Holland determined to move her from accordinglyrequestedthetug HowlirdCarroll, then lying at t,he end of the Ilame pier, to take ,Il line from the steamer in order to
G.' Benedict, Esq.; of tlleNew York bar.
tow her away from the burning wharf. The Carroll at once moved under the bow of the steamer, and took from her a line by wbich she commenced to tow the steamer. Very shortly afterwards the steam-tug Henry T. 'Sisson was signaled by the officer in charge of the steamer to take an additional line, which she did, but in so doing got into a position where she could bring little power to bear. At this time the Rose came, and making fast a line to the bow of the Sisson, towed that tug into a position which enabled her to pull upon the steamer. Under power of these three tugs the steamer was moved from her berth to a safe place in the stream. While she was moving, in order to prevent the steamer from being damaged by or doing damage to the pier as she moved out into the ebb tide, the officer in charge of the steamer requested the tug Fuller and also the tug Hammond to push against her port side in order to keep her away from the wharf, the tide then tending to set the steamer against the wharf. In this way the steamer was taken out of danger. The right of the libelants to recover salvage compensation for these services, although denied in the answer, has been conceded upon the argument. The question submitted for decision relates only to the amount. Manifestly it is a case of salvage, for the steamer was removed from a place of peril to a place of safety by the voluntary efforts of these tugs. While the steamer was undoubtedly u:posed to some danger, that danger was not great. The fire department with 12 engines were soon playing water upon the pier. Two fire boats made their appearance in the slip, and the result seems to indicate that their efforts would have been sufficient to prevent the steamer from receiving any considerable damngeif she had remained at the wharf. Still there was riskl,fQr it could not be known at the outset to what extent the fire would reach, and it was dangerous. The risk was considered by the officer in charge sufficient to require her removal from the pier. It is also evident that if these tugs had declined to take the steamer into the stream she could have been warped across the slip to the pier above, and so out of danger. For, although she had not steam upon her engines, her donkey boilers had steam and could have been used to work the winches. It is a case, therefore. where the value was large, but the peril was moderate. Moreover the services rendered by these tugs was short in duration, not exceeding two hours. It was not extraordinary in character, and involved no risk to them. Nevertheless, being a salvage service, the tugs are entitled to more than common towing compensation. In my opmion the sum of $4,500 will be a prop8r salvage award in a. case like this. In apportioning this amount among the five tugs it is 1o)e noticed that it is conceded that the service was requestf>d by the officer in charge of the steamer in the case of every tug except the Rose. In regard to the Rose the teStimony of the claimants' witness shows that the Rose rendered -a necessary service in taking hold or the Sisson and prill-'ing her into a position where she could tow the steam-ship to advantage. Many witnesses testify that 'the .officer by signals directed the Rose to help the Sisson. The officer in charge of the steamer says that hernade·
signals to the Rose not to take hold. But as the Rose at once gave a line to the Sisson the officer thinks, as he says, that his request was misunderstood. If it had appeared that the Rose had intentionally hold in opposition to the known direction of the officer in charge of the steamer I should have refused her any compensation, but that cannot be found to be the fact upon the evidence. The Rose was the most powerful and valuable ofall the tugs, but the service rendered by her was similar to that rendered by the Niel, for which no claim is made. In so far as the effort of the Rose enabled the Sisson to get into position, it was valuable, but beyond getting the Sisson into position her services were unnecessary. The Niel left when the Carroll was put in position, and the Rose could have left when the Niel did without interfering with the relief of the steamer. Under all the circumstances I allow to the tug Howard Carroll, her officers and crew, the sum of $1,250; to the tug John Fuller, her officers and crew, the sum of $800; to the tug Henry T. Sisson, her officers and crew, the sum of $1,000; to the tug George L. Hammond, her officers and crew, the sum of $650; to the tug A. C. Rose, her officers and crew, the sum of $800.
(District Court, S. D. New York. December 24, 1890.)
1, SHIPPING-LIMITATION OF LUBILITy-AOT JUNB 24 1884-PBRSONAL CONTRAOTS.
The act of June 26, 1884, limiting the liability of the owners of vessels "ou account of the same" to their interest in the vessel and the freight peDding, is to be construed . ail in part materia with the act of 1851, (Rev. St. §§ 4283-4285,) and in accordance with the general maritime law, and does not embrace the personal contracts of , such owners, or such as they have adopted as their personal liabilities. Repairs were made on -the schooner P. in her home port, by order ot the managing agent, with knowledge of some of the owners. On the third voyage afterwards, through her fault, a collision claim arose ag-ainst her, exceeding her value. 'l'he owners, upon the surrender of the vessel, and pending freight thereupon ohtained a decree limiting their liability, which decree was pleaded in bar of the claim in this suit against the owners in personam for the bill of repairs. Held, that the decree was not a bar; that the claim was a personal contract of the owners, not . SUbject to limitation, or, if so, only upon surrender of the vessel and freight as they existed at the close of that voyage, free from liens or demsnds growing out of prior or subsequent voyages.
SUIE-LIABILITY FOR REPAIRS-COLLISION,-RES ADJUDIOATA.
In Admiralty. Alexander & Ash, for libelants. . J)wen, Gray & Sturgis, for respondents· The libelants sue to recover a bill for repairs upon the Pharo, of New Jersey, in her home port, in May, 1889. The respondents were the owners of the vessel at the time. The amount of the bill is not disputed, but the respondents set up as a defense the proceedings for the limitation of their liability subsequently taken, and
. BROWN, J. SChOOll'ef J. J.