garding the words "eredits and effects" in that rule as used in contradistinction to "goods and chattels," it seems to me the natural object of the proceeding by garnishment was to enable the libellant to reach the same property, viz., goods and chattels, if held by a third person not an agent of the owner, as well as any debts owing by such person to the owner. I regard the word"effects" as practically equivalent to "goods, " and including personal property, tangible as well as intangible. The motion to quash must therefore be denied.
THE MARY "
(District Othlrt,'E. 'D.Pen'nsylvania.
May 10, 1881.)
-T?WING Y;ESSEL OIl'F,Qlf ,\'1I0AI,--. WHAT Aw.oI'RDED. , ' : '. i }tA'i<!llotmer'vtilrte'd at $6,000, with a cargo andfrtJih't :,".20,QOO, ronagTound upon a. shoal in Delaware bar, and set i "'sigha,l of distress. A tug valued at $18,000, ianother vessljl up, tqe bllY, signal, ancho.redp,er tow,anq went to the relief, ofFhe schoonet, wh'ich ih pUlltng'off 'the shoal and'takihlg to Philadelphia., There wasconf\ictingtestimony Be 'to the 'cbtditio'n Qf, thE! Wind;fU,ld sEla,; wp,ether the, schooner was in serious liaMer, and wlwther tIll) tug J:'!tn ll:ny, risk in relieving Other relief was near, · and arrived: soon 'after the schooner was floated. In a libel by the tug for salvage, held, that $1,050 was, under all the circumstances, a just compensation.
In Libel by the owners of the stea;m-tllgJuno. against the schooner Mary E. Long" her cargo, 'an<l freigh;t, to, rocovar salvage. The testimony was as follows:
About 2 o'clock A. M. on February 21, 1880, the schooner, while sail· ing up the Delaware bay, grounded on a long and narrow shoal called the Brandywine shoal. For the purpose of working across the shoal she kept her sails set until 5 o'clock A. M., when they were hauled down, About 7 o'clock A. M. the schooner set a signal of distress, and about 8:30 o'clock she again set her sails, About 9 o'clock the tug Juno, pro*Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq , of the Philadelphia bar.
THE MARY E. LONG.
e_eeding up the bay with a schooner which she had contracted to tow to Philadelphia for $50, saw the Long's signal, and immediately anchored her tow and went to the Long's relief. The Juno furnished a hawser, and succeeded after some time in pulling the schooner oft the shoal. In the meanwhile the Long's signal of distress had been reported at the Delaware breakwater, and two other tugs started for her relief, arriving, however, just as she came oft the shoal. The Juno turned over her original tow to one of these tugs, and proceeded with the Long to Philadelphia. The LO-';lg was worth $6,000, her cargo $18,557, and her freight .2,232. The value of the Juno was .18,000.
The libellants' testimony was to the
That the shoal wias'a dangerous one, being formed of quicksand, and that other vessels grounding on it had heen lost; that the Long was workiDgdown,and further upon the shoal; that she was t4umping.upon the b,Ot,t.<\ill, and Would soon hav.e bilged j that tbe wing, was very llnd that the sea was so high as to break over both the and the tug, to render 'the:service of the tug very' dangerous. ",' ., . ,
The respondent's testimony wast6: the effect:",,:,:,
That the schooner was working across the shoal, and would, by the aid of her own sails, have worked off of it; that she was not thumping upon the bottom and not leaking: that she was so little injured that after discharging her cargo at Philadelphia she took a new cargo and sailed for Portland without making :anY'repairsie:s:liept caulkmg her tops and butts; thaI. the wind. was merely a whole-sail breeze;. that the sea was not high; and· 'that: neither the Long nor the tug' weere· in any serious danger.
Thcqdorti, M. and ITrnry R. Edm¥-nds,for lilWIlil,llt. " James, B"Roney, for respondent. ' , BUTiER, D. J.. The libellants are entitled tocompensa.
tion a's salvors. I see no room for doubt of this. The reo in peril. That she might have escaped without atfistance,is not important. What compensation should be allowed? As in aU similar cuses, this qUflStion is embarrassing. While certain general rules may be appealed to for assistance, the measure of compensation must vary with the peculiar circumstances of each case. The subject is intelligently discussed in ThdStetson, 1 Lowell, 119, where the circumstances were much like those of the case in hand. The considerations which should gov. ern the inquiry are: What would the libellant have contracted to perform the service for,-taking the risk of fail. ure,-and what would the respondent have contracted to pay?
This 'involves the danger of the service to the libellant, and the risk of declining it, to the respondent,-as the dan'at the time. In '1'heSt'etson, above ger and cited, the court awarded 5 per cent. ot the property rescued. Here a similar percentage would amount to $1,300. In view of the limited extent of the danger encountered by the libellant, and the prospect of succor from o.ther sources by the respondent, I believe $1,300 to be a larger sum than the former would have demanded, or the.latter have consented to pay. I am not unmindful of what Captains Randolph and Chester say of the situation; but their statements, when compared with those of other witnesses, seem somewhat exaggerated. $1,050 (one After careful examination of the case, I thousand and fifty dollars) a just compensation, a.nd this sum will be aW&l'ded, with costs.
(Diaerict Court, E.
NelD York. April 20, 1881.)
Where a cargo 'of mineral phosphate was gathered from the of Fernando de Noronha, and brought to New York in the brig D. t and an action'wAs commenced against vessel and cargo, the libel set· ting forth libellant's ownership of cargo and wrongful taking thereof from the island by the master of this vessel in violation of rights said to be exclusively given to the libellant by the Brazilian government to gather this phosphate, and the cargo had been sold, and the proceeds, by cons of libellant, paid into court to abide the event of l).t this action: It seems that the admiralty has jurisdiction to determine the own. ership of the cargo, It seems, also, that the vessel would not be HallIe , for ,the wrongful act of the master in taking the cargo, in the absence of any authority or ratification of his acts by his owners. Proceedings against vessel and against her cargo, for callses of action growing out of the same transaction, may be joined.
Dan. Marl:in, for libellant. Goodrich, Deady cf: Platt, for claimants.