TliE C. G.CRANMER.
405
credit of the ship., But. as I have said. this necessity lnthe case of an owner is not presumed. It must appear in proof. either from the circumstances, or from the terms of the negotiation, whic,h may afford conclusive evidence both of the intent and of the necessity. It is only when the ,deals with tile master, or the ship's agent, or some officer of the ship by the master's sanction or acquiescence, that he deals presumptively with the ship 'herself, and sells to the ship upon her credit. In other cases the common intent to charge the ship must be shown:"
Beyond the fact of this being in the home port, the' transactions between the libelants and Romans leave it certainly a matter of doubt whether f.!1e sales were made' really upon the credit of the boat, and not in pursuance of the generalbredit which Romans had acquired by virtue of his past dealings. Hdwever, I place my decision rather upon th,e ground just noticed, ofthe purchase by the owner in the home port. It is unnecessary to add more, and the ruling of the district court was right, and a decree will be entered dismissing the libel at libelants' costl).
THE FELLS
C.
G.CRANMER. 1
et
at. ft. THE
G. CRANMER.
(Di8t'l'ict OOU7't, E. D. Pennsylvania. February 29, 1888.) SALVAGE-WHO ARE SALVORS.
The schooner C.· while on a vovagefrom Norfolk to Philadelphia. with a cargo of cedar logs, part of which were above and part below deck, encountered heavy weather, during which part of the deck-load was lost. This caused the vessel to list, and in consequence ship considerable water. 'fhis was pumped out, enough of the deck-load was thrown off to right the vessel, and tbe colors were run up for a tug. The libelants' were shipwrecked sail6rs, who had been drifting about for 30 hours, without food or water. They were .taken on board and fed" and were then asked to assist in working the vessel, ·This they agreed to do. Soon after as the crew had been worked very they were taken aboard a passing brig tendered assistance, which was declined. On arriving in port they claimed salvage. Held, that they were not entitled to salvage, but that under the circumstances they ought to receive more than ordinary compensation for the services rendered.
In Admiralty. well and sufficiently manned and The schoOner C·. G. Cranmer, eqnipped, while on a voyage from Norfolk to Philadelphili with a cargo of cedar logs, partly helow and partly on deck, on the 17th day of December, A. D. 1887, met with tempestuous weather, the wind rising almost to a hurricane, during which she lost part of her deck-load, being part of the gunwale tier on the starboard side. About half past 6 the same evening, the wind shifted to the north-west, and the vessel went on to the starboard tack, and the vessel (being lighter on the starboard side, by' reason of the loss of a.portion of the as aforesaid) took a . 1Reported bye: Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
lisMo;port,being' almost on her beam ends. 'The.' anchoJrS were, let go, 'and 'about 8 o'dock'she parted her starboard ohairt,and dl'al1;ged sea'\tard with her small anchor. The Vessel, while in this pdSitiOl1i tOdk tIle worked all night to pump her out. o'clock next (Decem,ber 18th) all hands went to work to. to light the ship, and the colors were set for a tug. After the vessel had been righted, and most of the water pumped out of . did not leak,)to-wit, at about 9 o'clock A.M.,the libelants coming towards the Cranmer in an open boat, and in. hour afterwards libelants ,were taken aboard. The Ilhipwrecked sailors, having been connected with, the'PhiladelphiascP90ner Catharine W., May, which had been lost, and from which theYAAd in open boat, about midnight of16th, o,r theearlymol'niug They had had nothing to eat or drinkfrom the time' until taken aboard of the Cranmer,ab6u,t 30 hours. They were properly taken care of, and were asked to assist at the' punlps, and to throw over cargo. Some of them did so; one assisted the cook. About 3 o'clock P. M. a brig hove in sight. The colors were taken down t no assistance being then needed; the Cranmer being almost dry, not leaking any, and entirely up., ,The brig came near them and libelants wanted to go to her, but a.t'the' request of the master of the Cranmer they remained aboard. An hour the Cranmer got under way, and sailed to tlie Delaware breakwater, or near there, when she was taken The libelants came about 25 miles E. S. E. from Cape Charles, and when picked up were heading direct to sea. Upan the arrival of the vessel at Philadelphia, the master paid libelants eachfive"dblhus,alid theowners offered them ten dollars each additiqUlI:1, "w Pugh, for libelants. H(1{l/t'jJ' R.", Ei/munds, for respQ,pdent· .,! .,', I . ,.' :' I'
j '."
,f'
'.;
-,
"',
,,;:,
,
'
I find the material facts to be substantially as set forth iIi the. There'is serious disagreement between the witnesses on-the one side and the:other. The burden of proof, however, is onthe,libelai,ltlll,an.d their evidence consists entirely of their own statements. "Withoufihaking allowance for theirinterest, and consequent bias, the weight of evidence seems to be clearly against thepl. such allowance, the prepon<lewnce is increased. Thewitne,sseson:the otherside are disinterested·. ' 'J;heyare in no respect responsible fa/.' the situation of tpe vessel, and no motive for falsifying can :seen. I do npt fe'e1 ariy ill concluding, factS)lre sUbstantially,as detailed by these and set rorth'in t.he statement. Nor dol feel any SE1J;ious from these t11at the ,libelants did not dera :Whlltever may haVe been. th,e v:essel's sitllotion" up,she wcllsnot, in my. as 'J;6spectu>eril, before the libelants judgment, iri serious danger at that time, or afterwards. She had been to p.bout three feet; the so far pumped out that the water BUTLER,'J>;
THEe. G. CRANMER.
407
-deck-load (which had become unbalanced by losing a part in the storm, .and thus caused the list, and shipping of water) had been so far thrown over that the vessel had righted. That, is not the period of time at which her situation is material to the queStion involved. Even Hshe had then been in pedl,) I would hold that the libelants-picked up from the' sea, (for they were unable \0 get on board without help,) res-cued from great danger, if not almost certain death, (for they were hungry and without provisionS, wet, stiff with cold, and running out to sea in the storm)-are not entltled to compensation as salvors for any work they performed. Thusresclied and taken care of, it was their duty to do all they did, prior to thl'! ti,mewhen the brig cameby,-about3,o'clock in·the afternoon. Then they had an opportunityofleaving, and it was their right to embrace it. They proposed to leave,but remained, at the master's request, to assist in working the vessel. This is thetitaterial period to which inquiry must b, directed respecting the vessel's situation. She was then substantially free of water; her deck-load was so far Iemoved as. not to presentserjpps difficulty, and)he W41J virtually out of danger. Her anchors were gone, but this was aU, or .nearly a11,.1he los;.'l her tackle had suffered. The hull had suffered none; She was iocondition to sa,il for port, au<i did sail in aboutan hour.; . Thtllossof her anchors was not,. therefortl, serious. The fact thnt she declined the services of the brig, declaring that she did not need assistance, must be regarded, as conclusive not in peril, and did difficulty in Ketting to port. Early in the morning (beforelibelanls came aboard) she raised a signal on seeing the smoke of a pasSing vessel, a steamer, whichpiight tow her to port. The signal was left up in the hope of attracting. a, 'tUg. Whether it is called a signal of distress or signal for a tug is unimportant. It is clear that when' was informed of took it down, saying he needed no assistance; and that when. the brig halled, her proffered aid .was declined. These circumstances seem to be conclusive on the subject of peril at this time. It is impossible to believe that if the vessel in peril, great or slight, the master would have so acted, and thus without lllotive or excuse have risked the lives .of himself and crew, as well as the vessel and cargo. He desired the libelants' assistance in working the vesssel. This, however, was because his crew had.heeno\tel'!tllSked during the storm, and were tiredjand. because the situation made the presence of such additional help a wise measure of precaution",. The libelants are not, therefore, to salvageoom.pensation. .['hey are,however, entitled to be paid for the services rendered after the brig passed. They remained on board by request, with an understauding that they should be so paid. In determining how mU,ch they should receive, the circumstances existing at the time-theconditionofthe weather, the possibility of trouble and delay in reaching. port .-should be <.,'onsidered. The services (under the Qontracts)extended .Qver a period of about, three days. Twenty-five dollars each, in .my judgment, is a fair allowance. Five dollars have been paid to each; for the balance, with costs, they must have a decree.
408 THE MANHASSET.1 THE PORTS;MOUTHAND BARGE
4-0.
LILLIST01'i" et V.THE AND THE PORTSMOUTH AND BARGE LILLlllTON v. SAME. COOPER v. SAM£. OWNERS OF THE MANHASSET V. THE -PORTSMOUTH AND BARGE 40.
40.
Uz.
(.DiBtrict Oourt, E. ,.D. fir,qinia. March 6; 1888.)
t.
COJ,LtSION:.LBETWEEN TuG ANnF:mnRy-BoAT-LooxOUTS.
of a lookout properly a steamer navigating a ;nighUlllmperative. AJerry-boat is not exempt from this obligation, anQ. has no special Privileges br exemptions not possessed by other steamers. " . . SIGNALS-OBSOURING LIGHTS.
2.
:. Atllg whic4,had placed herself O·n the wel!t side of car float, in stress of forced thereby leave a wharf. and attempt to reach another, hi whien position the colored lights of the tug were hid from a ferryboatappro8chlllg from the other sidehy the intervening barge; was not, under the cireUmstall,ces of the oase,.negligent fl;>r sodoing. A car-flOat ts not required by the rules of navigation to carry any light. One whlchW'as rigged with colored lights, but wall being towed backwards underthC:UlecIl8sities of tile occasion. thereby hiding her colored lights, and which, light on the,end wh!ch was mo,!ing was not, llnderthe'clrcumstances of ,the case, gUIlty of Ileghgence III the matter of lights. . . , SAMJ;ll-FERRy,BoATS"""'tRIGHT OF WAY. . . '. : . . .
8.
4.
Tllet\lg.1'nd barge were not bound to delay th,eir departUre from their wharf .till ferty-boat had arrived ather docl(. Ferrtboats have no prior rights of navigatIOn· over other boats. ., ·i .
.
0; SAME.4CROllSING VESSELS. pnder the factI! the. pOllition of the colliding vessels WaS not a Case of cross, ing, and rule 19 /ioesnot apply. . 6. SAiI!:E-'-FAILtrn£ '1'0 SIGNAL. .. Nor was it M$'lIgence In the master of the tug not to have blown several . short dallger, 'Whistle$. : . 7. SAME-NEGLIGJ\lNCE. . ' . ' . ' On the whole facts of the case the ferry-boat was soleljo to blame for the collision. . " . . " T . '. '
In Admiralty. These were three libels'agaiust the ferry-boat Manhasset,the tug;Portsmouth, and the Barge 40, jointly,and one libel against the tug and barge. for damages from collision ,whichwere consolidated', and heard together. The evidence submitted in these cases fills 885 type-written pages of legal-cap paper, and is augmented in volume by the usual complement of 'documentary exhibits.' IIi the main, it is very conflicting,and an undue pl'oportion of it consists of tedious, unenlightening oross-examinations. In stating what I conclude to be the facts of the case, it would be well·if I could, in this paper, take up the evidtlnce bearing on each contested point, ,balance conflicting statements, and set out my reasons 1 Reported
by Robert M. Hughes, Esq., 01 the Norfolk bar.