-and binding upon the vessel; and:would: <lontinuesountiJ: tbe"dredgthe 22d ing :tOr which it provided <sho'Ukl be performed,i. .Dedemberj for otherwise he would not have signed. the 'contract. I ,cann,otagreethat Frame'scontrttct to furnish all the materials Itnd implements necessary to the launching of the scn61:>ner itnplif\d that' he owned, 8Jld, could continuaBy:cottlmand, a dredge, or even that he would have one. ready for use on every particular day on wI!lichit could be use<;!.,: It:isclear f.rom the tenor of theoolltraot that each party contemplated" that the schooner wast/:)· be got off by "launching." Dredging waB'llot in the minds of either party. Nor ddes to have come into tbeirJl[linds until after the lapse of several: weeks, in, futile attempts 'at On the whole case, I think Frame is entitled to a just compensation for whatever eJectual work he dlid for the schooner; He would be entitled tpcompensation for the dre<3ging ,done by Culpepper; but, as Condon nas paid that debt, it cannot now be awarded to him. He is also entitled to a proper compensatidn for moving the vessel from the spot where he found her to that up to which the canal was dredged. I could not allow his actual expenditures in this part 6f his work. He ,may have spent double what it ought to have cost.' 1 think the best way of getting at what this service Was worth will be to allow him what the dredging of the canal up to where the vessel originally lay would have cost. Capt. Baker says that that distance would have required six or seven days' dredging. This at $50 a day, or $300, is what I will cillow. .A decree may be taken for $300, and $61.04 costB*
MULLER fl. SPRECKELS.' (DIstrict Court. JD. D. rfl?lnB1lwania. October
Colft'BAOT BY MASTER 01' VESSEL-VALIDITY.
An agreement by a charterer to give the master of a vessel :a drawback In oonsideratlon of his permitting the stevedoring to be done by him at a higher price than it could have been done by other parties is void.
CBARTlIlR-PARTY-RJGHTS, OJ' CHARTERER TO UNLOAD-CoJIPBNSATJOX·
.A .shipcpntracted for 85 cents a ton for stevedoring a cargo of sug-ar, which was a fair compensation; the charterer ,himself assumed the stevedoriug, charging 45 cents a ton. Held, as the right to do the stElvedoring was the ship's, and was not Jiven to charterers by a charter-party providIng that the "ship to be addressed to * * charterers or their agent at port of discharge for custom-house business on the usual terms," the charterer lS not entitled to more than the service woDld have cost the ship. .
Where.,. vessel, to make the delivery required by the terms of the charter, Is enter a dock, and for this purpQse enters the dock of the charterer, she is liable to him for the ordinary charges for such accommodation. A charge made for the use of a dock, equal ito the usual wharfage fee,where a vessel enters it, and excludes by her presence. others from the, use of the wharf, alJ:, ' , by Mark Wilks COllet, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
WHA.RFAGE-LIABILITY OF VESSEL,
MULLE,R tl. SPRECKELS.
though not using the wharf herself, is a recognized usage of the port of Philadelphia, and vessels'are:beld to a knowledge thel"eQf. Where a of a bill avert! ,deli,very of "the wbole cargo taken on board," and the answer acknowledges'that the paragraph containing this averment is true, a for shortage of cargooannot be allowed.
6. ENTRY AT CuSTOM-E;OU8E--Fll,Jl8 OJ' CHARTllRllR'S AGllNT.
OF CARGO-CLAIM FOR SHORTAGE:.
Although making entry was by the duty of the charterer's agent, yet, if he, be intormoobefore doing so that entry has been made, he will not be almaking it a,second time,nor for the servicea of a tug'!n making it.
.,,' . '
, .,' Where' charter-party confines the duties of a ship'. agent to "ol1swm-house " busi.n$ls" he is not the geaeralrepresentatlve (}f the Ihip; and iB not entitled to an fee."
Libel by Victor H. Muller, master of tbe'steam-sbip E;ugenie, against Claus Spreckels to recover freight. The groSs freigllt was 87,587.72, which had been paid less the following qeductions: Entrance fee,.$5i custont-bouse fees, $1.40; tug-boat services delivering orders, $2; wharf$1,424,61; advertising, $5.95; stationery, etc., age, 810; "attendance" fee, $50; commission, $190.82; short delivery, $42.07. ' John Q. L1/nt, for libelant. Prank P. Prichard and John G. Joh'lUJfYn, for respondent.
J. "The libel is for freight, und,er charter-party-for carrying sugar. The amount earned. is $7,632.80. The charter providea that "the sbipshall pay chartererJsagent at port ofdischarge a commisSion of two arid a half per cent. on gross freight," and that the ship "shall be addressed at port of discharge to the "harterer or his agent forcustom-hQuse busiriess, on the usual terms." The cargo was to be deliverE'datPhiladelphia, "along-side store or into oraft or steamer at wharf,piElr, or on cars, afloat," as ordered., On the ship'a arthe appointment of an agent, and the employment Of stevedores. As we haye seen, it was the charterer's right toappointlln agent, and the duty of unloading was on the vessel. '£he charterer, Spreckels, appointed Hempstefl,d & Co. and desired the em· ployment of pia own stevedores, at 45 cents per ton; while the master was solicitollS for the appointment: of Wesenberg & Co. as agents, and selected his own stevedores-contracting to pay 35 cents per ton. An effort was 'made to reach an agl'll.ement on the subject, and several inter," views between the parties occurred. The testimony produced is too ooIdradictoryto, prove the allegations of either ,side. The libelant sets up an agreement for the appointment of Wesenberg & Co.; and the reo spondent an,agreement that his should be employed at 45 per ton; 'the burlien of is on the party setting up the agreecharacter of the testimony the ment; and in ,view of showJ?by the charter must The fact that the chartererselecte<f'an agent, and throughout. the transaction insisted on hisrecognitipn by the ship, is; the allegation that he agteed' the. appointment of & Co. ; and the fact thatth,
ship 'employed stevedores at 35 . ton is' the allegation that she agreed to lUJCept Mr. Spreckels' stevedores at 45 cents. If it is true as alleged .. did thi.s in cOD,$iilerati6n of an agreement to pay the master,alid Wesenberg & Co. R drlliwback of $50 each, the transaction should not be recognized. prove,d should subject masters their agents ,therein. to severe ptmishment. The statement by respondent's counsel that the master adIllits the alleged agreement to ElIllploy these not sl;lstained R!llunderstand it. It is true that he.d<;>es bOt say that such an agreement was coupled with an understanding that Wesenberg & Co. should have the agency. It would be unjust to siOl;drom.its cQonection,and th,u,B" is therefore, to justify a departure from the terms chtlrtetin ascertaining 'the #ghts9f the' parties. instrument, as we 'have seen, Mr. Spreckels' agent wasauthorizefl' to transa,ct the ship"s!oustotrt-hotiseblfsiness, making the usual charges, and disbursemen'tS:QIl' that account, and is expressly cent. on. the grossamO\1nt of freight. The right to was the ship's; and Mr. Spreckels, who assllmed of it, is entitled to no more than the employment would have her.. As,before stated she contracted to have it done for 35 cents; and this the master and Mr. Moe say was 11 fair compensation. ThE:j"master's fl,lfther statement; as well as thatof Mr;Wesenberg, that the service ought to have been perforn1ed farless, under their construction of the charter, I do not consider entitled to any weight in view of the, facts just ra-ferred to. ' , The freight earned; as. 'we have seen, wj\s$7,632.Sq.' Of,this$5,9,75.. were paid to the owners directly by Hempstead through draft. $225 has been withheld as for wparfage. ltis, objected that the vessel was not compelled to a wharf, and tllat tMs eharge is therefore improper, To make very required by the charter however,ifwas necessa;ryto enter the dock connected with the wharf·. Although this was the private wharf of ,Mr. Spreckels, the testinHmyshows that wharfage is always charged tl'Ilder such circum:stances,. andjustifies a conclusion that no exists as regards the charge: where the wharfis not used if the dock is, . The vessel's presence excluded its use by others, and the charge is consequently if it were employed. Such is the usage of this port and the ship must be held to a knowledge of it. Mr. Spreckels testifies that the amount claimed·isthe usual charge, and there is no suggestion that it is excessive. ThesuIll of $42.07 retained for shortage of Cargo, cannot be allowed.' The answer expressly a;dmits receipt of the entire amoullt shipped. The third paragraph of the libel avers delivery of "the whqle cargo taken on board "and the answer says "the averments of the, third paragraph of the bill are true." Besides I find nothing in the evidence to sustain the allegation. The sum of $190.82 retained as commission on freight is distinctly authorized (aswe have see):}) by the charter. The sums of 85 and $1.40 fees for entrance at the custom-house 3hould not
be allowed. ' While the duty of making entrance devolved upon the charterer's agent, the charterer was informed in advance that the entry had been made, and he should not therefore have incurred the expE'nse of making it a, second time. The service ot a tug for which $2 is r,harged was, as I understand, required only in making the entry, and should be disallowed. The $5 charge for advertising should not be allowed; and the same must be said of $10 fen' stationery ,etc. Nor do I see anything in the evidence to justify the charge of $50 ICfor attendance fee." The duties of this agent were confined to "custom-house business." He was not the general representative of the ship, and there is nothing in the evidence to show any connection between this business and the charges here referred to. Settlements for the freight, after making the deductions allowed, &hould have been made with the master or his agent. The payment howE'ver, to the owners to the extent made, should under the circumstances be credited to Mr. Spreckels. A decree may be prepared accordingly.
THE' F. E. SPINNER.
UNION DRy-DoCK Co.
THE F. E. SPINNER.
(DistriCt Court, lif. D. New York.
On a libel in rem against a vessel for the value" of a chain used in raising her , from the bottom of a river, it appeared that the libelant contraoted by telegraph with 'a tug compapy to sell it the chain, and that he delivered the chain to a tug sent for it. He had no communication with the owners or master of the vessel, and there was nothing to show that he knew for what purpose the chain was wanted, except his testimonythllot he "supposed" and "interred" that it was for raising the sunken vessel.' .Six weeks after delivering the chain he wrote to the tug company ring to "our agreement. "and proposing to draw for the price' of the chain.' therewalil no evi4ence tp support either a maritime lien for supplies turnishea or for salvage upon the vessel raised.
In Admiralty. Libel rem by the Union Dry-Dock Company against theF. E. Spinner.. . , 'The. libel alleges that on September 17,1885, the libelant furnished and delivered 1,480 feet M steel chain, worth $863, to the steam propellerF. E. Spinner, at the request of her master and owners. That the libelant relied upon the credit of the vessel as well as that of the owners and master, and would not have furnished the chain except upon the credit of the vessel. That by reason of these facts the libelant acquired a lien upon the vessel for the value of the chain. The answer of the owner of the Spinner denies every allegation of the libel which seeks,tocharge the vessel with liability. On the 10th of September, 1885, the libelant received the following te,legram; v.48F.no.7-37