THE GEORGE W. CLYDE·
·teps that was not loose. This of itself was Bufllcient to prevent a recovery. The other question of fact, as to whether the evidence showed that the rubber on the step had been out of repair for a sufficient length of time to impart notice to the defendant, has no special application to this case; for here the negligent act of the appellants consisted in placing the keg in the place where, from its positlOn, danger was liable to occur. We have constantly recognized the principle, for which appellants contend, that no one can be held liable for an injury which was not the result naturally and reasonably to be expected from the act of his employe, and could not have been foreseen. Railway Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. 8. 469; Sheridan v. Bigelow, 93 Wis. 426, 67 N. W. 732; McGowan v. Railway Co., 91 Wis. 147, 64 N. W. 891; Henry v. Railroad Co., 50 Cal. 183; Motey v. Marble Co., 20 C. O. A. 366, 74 Fed. 155. But it logically follows that the converse of this proposition must be true,-that the master should in all cases be held liable for an injury which was a result naturally and reasonably to be expected from an act of his employe, which could have been foreseen and guarded against by the exercise of ordinary care and reasonable diligence. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs.
THE GEORGE W. CLYDE. COMMERCIAL TOWBOAT CO. v. THE GEORGE W. CLYDE.
(CircuIt Court ot Appeals, Second Circuit. No. 101.
SALVAGE-ADEQUACY OF AWARD.
AprU 7, 1898.)
An award ot $1,000 to two tugs which went promptly to the assistance ot a steamship (In apparent danger of sinking trom colllsion), valued with its cargo at $50,000, and in 15 minutes, without danger to themselves, beached her In a safe place. will not be disturbed as inadequate.
Appeal from the District Oourt of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for appellant. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, for appellee. Before WALLAOE, LAOOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. The appellant insists that the award of the court below of $1,000 for the salvage services rendered by its two tugs to the steamship was inadequate. The tugs happened to be near the steamsuip when she was so badly injured by a collision with another vessel that there was apparent danger of her sinking immediately, in water 60 to 80 feet in depth. They went to her assistance, and her master requested them to tow her to the shallow water, which was about a quarter of a mile away. They did so, and, in less than a quarter of an hour after the collision, she was beached in safety. The value of the steamship and her cargo was ,50,000. The 8ervices involved no risk to the tugs. Those in charge of the steamship discovered, as soon as the towing services
began, tbatl11lt> 'situation was lesBcriticaltMu"theyha:d at first lIn; fact, she could' hdve'<reached the place to which she was towed'! Without assistance',: and 'would have done so if it had been necessary; The tugs 'acted':promptly and energetically, but the service was a short one, involving no danger to the persons or property of those engaged in· it, and, as it turned out,' could have been dispensed with by the: steamship. ' Upon this state of facts, we ought not to disturb the decree. We cannot say that the award was manifestly inadequate. "The allowance of salvage is, neces· sarily, largely a matter of discretion, which cannot be determined with precision,by the application of exact rules. 'Different minds, in the exercise of independent judgment upon the same evidence, seldom' coincide exactly in their view of the facts, or give the same prominence to the varied eleinents which make up the case. An approximate concurrence is all that can be expected." The Baker, 25 Fed. 771. For this reason,' appellate courts are not disposed to interfere in salvage case!:!, unlesstlieawardis manifestly excessive or inadequate, or has proceeded upon some erroneous principle. The EmUlous, 1 Sumn. 214, Fed. Cas; No. 4,480. The decree is affirmed, with costs.
, REAK!RT THE ELLA. " . (DIstrIct cotJrt;b.'])elawate.APTil 9, 1898.)
1. . ' A 'Sale camoo'as : imder : to ,w111chthe .coill Ill! delivered toa vessel to be 0(. to the p,urcha$er as the
,..; ".' .
. 'tiOli '6t SliC'l1"'Mal, iller 'havIng biien delivered .to thecOns1gnee,ls. supplied by It to such vessel as necessary fuel, serve to create or support a maritime
, ,tr!lGt; nordQ.,thefacts. ijlat tjbf! co:Q.s!gnee ovvnssUGh ye.ssel Jlnd that a pOI'lien.
The question whether a mai'lt1mellen attached fot the price Of the coal must be determined on the facts and circumstances as they exIsted at the of .Its ,oo;iglna,l:deltvery ·by sequent application of the coal by the purchaser. (Syllabul!!. by tpEl: ,
i;:;i: " . '
Levi Bird and A. K Sanborn, ,for libelant I. C. Vandegrift, for claltnant. ' wis BRADFORD, District Judge. This is a libel in rem filed September30, 1896, by Margaret 1.. Reakirt, of the City of Philadelphia, trading as Reakirt Brother. & Company, against the steamboat· Ella, to recover the price of coaLfnrnished in that city by the libelant on the credit of that vessel, as'is alleged, from April 14, 1896, to August 22, 1896, inclusive; amounting, after deducting certain allowances, to. $707.22,. together with ,interest thereon from the last mentioned date. The Ella' was owned solely by .The Philadelphia and Smyrna 'rraris-