I'EDERAL lml'ORTER I
iJ. D. Pennsylvania. November 10, 1891.)
.." '. . ...
Brokers who have no connection with a cargo, .as brokers to 'sell same, collect the amounts due,Jand pay the freight,· are notperBonally liable for the freight., .," . , . DuTY. 0 .. 011' FREIGHT.' . .' It Is the duty of a master'who has signed, under the provision of acharter, bills . of la<lini!'; the ·freight on.which llmounte(lto a greater &D;lOUnt than. the .charter freight, to accept the freight due undtlr the charter-party, when tendered, and to authorise the &Kents of the charterer to collect the· freight on the bills of lading.
ClU,BTEIUIBS' AGENTB-!.UBILITY FOR FREIGHT.
In Adiniralty. Libel by Baldasare Damora, master of, the bark Cuomo Primo, against JohnF.Craigand James 'Craig, trading as John F. Oraig& Co. The vessel was chartered to proceedtoSt.'Johntl Antigua,and take in a cargo ofsugar;thevessel to be oonsignedto charterers' agents'at port of discharge, and, being loadeil.,.to proceed to Delaware breakwater for orders. Master to sign bills of lading at any rate of freight required without prejudice to this at not less certain rates mentioned.The vessel arrived at the Breakwater, and received orders from Watson & Farr, the' charterers' agents, to The respondents, John F.'Craig & effected a sale of the whole cargo, as sugar brokers, to Spreckels, & qq., by order of said Watson & F;trr, and of the other cOllsigneesj and, agents, paid to the niaster.'s agent, $1 ,000 on account of charter freight, ,which, with advancesma4etQ the master at Antigua, including insurance, left a balance due unller the charter of $298.87, for which a bill Was presented by the master's agent. Resp lnd.. ents were. directed to paY,the amount of charter freight 'appeitring by to. ·,&t.1!'arr tq collect this the bl1111fIadmg (relghts, whl,ch to 'fhecap.tain refused to do so. Watson & Farr found that consignees of the rest of the. cargp were willipg to settle th.ebill:qf laqing freights with them without suchauthorizatWn,· and directed. respondE;lP:ls tQ '. pay the balanqe of the freight, as per bill rendered, which said mas1er's',agent refused to accept, and this suit was brought for 'the full amOunt', of the bill ofladjllg stated that they were authorized aud directed by Mei>l?fs. 'Watson & Farrto tender the chartet'freight due toth,E!vessel. John Q. Lane, for libelant. . " , '. Morton P. Henry, for respondents.
BUTLER, J. It seems quite clear that the respondents are not Hable. The cargo was shipped under a charter, between the vessel and Bennett & Co. Watson & Farr, were the latter's agents; they assumed charge of the cargo on its arrival at the Delaware breakwater, and ordered its delivery to Mr. Spreckels, at Philadelphia, to whom the respondents
JReported by Mark Wilks Collet, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
THll:BAY OF NA:PLES.
had sold it, as brokers for Watson & Farr. The respondents had no connection with it except as such brokers. Watson & Farr authorized thEmito sell, and pay freight, on their account. The suit against them cannot,therefore, be sustained. In view of what has been submitted it is prdper to say that the master's position respecting the bills of lading and collection of freight under them-beyond the sum named in the charter-is erroneous. He should have'accepted the balanoodue under the charter, as tendered,and surrendered the bills. That Watson &, Farr were the charterers' agents, is clear, and the evidence justifies a conclusion that the master knew it. When he reached the breakwater he took their orders and acted upon them. His subsequent conduct is dif.. ficult to understand. A.s the respondents (for Watson & Farr) have tendered; and now offer to pay into court, the balance due under the charter-$298.87-and both parties desire the business closed with the diR-' this case, a decree may be entered for thiS sum-$298.87with costs,to the respondents.
TuEBAY OF NAPLES HALL
et at et al.
t1. THE BAY OF NAPLES
(CirCW£t Oourt of Appeals, Second Of,rcUit. Decemj)er 14, 1891.)
Although the amount of salvageJl'ests in tluidiscretion of the court awarding it, an appellate cour1;may the if in making it there was l\clear and palpable mistake, or violatlOn of just princlples,or a departure from the path of au·i thority. 8.. BAKE-ExoESSIVlll.AwARD-EVIDBNOB. A vessel at anllhor in New York harbor, laden with petroleum in wooden cases, took fire, and, j)ut for the prompt services of tugs which came to her assistl1nce,' would have been totally destroyed in a tew moments. Tb,e saVing to the owners was ascertained to be $81,400, and $20,000 was awarded the tugs as sa1vage. The vessel was of iron, and iron rigged. The salvorsencotintered no peril to person or prop.; arty, and the of the f!xe required no extraordinary exertion on their part. that the award of salvage was excessive, and sl:iou'ld be reduced to 44 Fed. Rep. 90, reversed.
'AGE-DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT-REVIEW.
Appeal from the circuit court of the t United States for the eastern district of New York. . In Admiralty. Libel by John Han and others against the ship Bay of Naples for salvage. Deoree for libelants for $20,000, which was affirmed pro forma, on appeal to the circuit court. From the decree of the circuit court the claimant appeals. Reversed. WilhelmU8 Mynde:rse, for appellant. Edward G. Benedict, for the tug Charm. De Lagnel Berier, for the steam-boat John Sylvester. Oharles 0. Burlingham, for the tugs Leader, Indian, and Talisman. Joseph F. Mosher, for the tugs Geo. t. Garlick, M. Moran, and John T. Pratt, libelants and appellees. ' v.48F.no.9-47