(District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. April 21, 1881.)
1. HANDS ON (JABGO. STEAM-BoAT -
COMPLETION 011' VOi'AGE -
Libellants were employed as hands on a steam-boat, on a trip from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati and back. They had nothing to do with the navigation of the boat, but the handling of the cargo was part of their employment. Held, that they had no right to quit the boat as 800n as she was fastened to the wharf at Pittsburgh, but that it was their duty to remain and assist in unloading her cargo.
Held, further, that the r8lpandents could deduct from libellants' wages the reasonable sums necessarilf paid for the discharge hf such cargo.
PRACTICE-PAYMENT TO MAnSHAL-l'AYMENT INTO CoURT-VOST&.
In Albert York Smith, for libellant. Isaac S. Van Voorhis, contra. ACHESON, D. J. The amount in controversy here is small. but to ihe libellants who sue for their wages the matter is of .consequence. Moreover, the principle involved is important. 'The case, therefore, deserves and has received careful consideration. The better opinion seems to be that unless there is -some express or implied agreement or established usage to dispense with their further services, seamen are bound to remain with the ship upon the completion of the voyage and assist in the delivery of her cargo, if made in a reasonable time. 1 Conk. Adm. 131; Dixon v. The Cyrus, 2 Pet. Adm. 413; Clolltman v. Tunison, 1 Sumn. 377. Here, there were no shipping articles or express contract. The libellants were employed as hands on the steam-boat Hudson, on a trip from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati and back. They had nothing to do with the navigation of the boat, but the handling of the cargo was part of their employment. Under ihe evidence, I think, they had no right to quit the boat as :soon as she was fastened to the wharf at Pittsburgh, but that it was their duty to assist in unloading her. This they ob·
stinately refused to do, and the respondents were compelled to hire laborers to take their places and perform their work in discharging the cargo. The respondents had a right topursue this course and deduct the necessary sums paid these laborers from the libellants' wages. 1 Conk. 131. After the boat was unloaded a tender was made to the libellants of theirwages, less the reasonable sums paid the laborers who per. formed the libellants' work. The libellants refused the and subsequently filed their libel in this case. Upon service of process the respondents (under protest) paid to the marshal the amount claimed by the libellants, and the costs up to that. time, and the marshal paid the money. into court. It would have been mote regular had the respondents, under leave granted, paid the amount of wages tendered into court -at the time their answer was filed, in support of the tender set up inthelr answer. But, substantially, this was done, for the marshal had paid the money into court before answer filed. Under the proofs in the case, I am of opinion that the libel must be dismissed, with costs.
(DiMice Oourl, 8. D. New York. January 18, 1881.)
PRACTICE-DISHIBBAL OF LmEL-DELAY AFTER
ISSUB. The practice of the court does not authorize the dismissal of a libel for the libellant's delay in bringing the caU8e to a hearing after issuejoined. The claimant has an equal right to mOTe the case. Rules S. D. N. Y. 136, 123.
In Admiralty. The libel was filed in 1866' for salvage, and issue was joined. Both parties noticed the cause for trial, and it was placed upon the calendar. It was reserved generally in 1870, and had not been moved again until 1880. The claimants moved to dismiss the libel for failure to prosecute.