FEDERAL
RErotiTEIt, vol. 38.
her proximity to the Burrows and in size·were such that . the latter would be necessarily squeezed against the wharf, and damage would ensue. Let there be a. decree of reference to &oommissioner to aBcertahi the of damage.
I
J'OHNSON 'V. THE
FRANKS. HALL. 15, 1889.
{District Oourt,B. North Oarolina. 1. BEAM1!ll't-WAGES.
2.
Libelant shipped on board ,a vessel, it being understood. that he was to perhis transportation and board. Afterform services generally in return wards, in the absence of the regular cook, who hl1-d told libelant, though without authority, to take his place, the libelant performed services as cook. Held, that libelant could reoover ona quantum meruit fOI w.hat such services were aotually worth. . . . ;
SAME· . . ,'
A contract which the libelat;lt signed as instructed by the captain of the vessel, after' he had commenced work as cook. and by· which he agreed to work fOr a nominal sum, was held invalid, the llbill/Wt beinK unable to read, and the contract not being read to him, nor any information given to him as . to its contents. .. , .. .
In Admiralty. D. W. Stevenson, for libelant. (][ark for claimant. This .is a suit by the libelant for wagesaB cook on the schooner Frank S. Hall on a voyage from Philadelphia to Morehead City. . Libelant, wholives in Stonewall, N. C., had shipped as a. cook from that phice to Philadelphia; and, desiring to. return home,had applied to themaster of the FrankS; Hall, which was understood to be bound for Sttinewall, for The agreed to take him back. No precise contract appears to have been made, but it seems to have beenuI;lderstood that Johnson was to pay nothing and receive no pay, but was to:perforrn services generally as 8 return for his transportation and board.. Afterwards, and while the at anchor at New.' castle, the book was taken sick, and left the vessel. Before he went he told libelant to take his place, and that he would be paid his wages, which were $25 a month. The master of the vessel said nothing to libelant about wages, and the former cook had no'authority to make any promise to hitn which would bind thevessel, but he went to work .and voyage/which was tempestuous' one, served as codk and lasted for 20 days, the schooner having been blown far out of her course by the great' storm- of Nbvember last. There being no contract as to servibes, the libelant would have been entitled to be paid on a quantv,m meruit for what he 'was actually worth, but fof'the fact that he, after he Md'eommenced to' wOrk as cook',signedsbipping articles,-
259, whereby he, as is alleged, agreed to work for 25 cents perinohth.', :The previous agreement to carry him from Philadelphia home for such WElrk as a landsman working his passage might by oustom be called \ob, to perform, clearly did not contemplate his services as a regular cook; and, upQn, his perfonuingsuch cser:vices a,:new ;contract was implied, whereby schooner would be· obligated to pay cook's wages. the master ,of This the master knew. He therefore had the lihelantsign the shipping referred to., If these are binding upon libelant the case, would:, be decided against him. But I am of opinion that they are not. Ubelant ,cannot read. ,He signed by mark; and thearticleH were not read to him, nor was he informed of their contents. He was simply told tQ sign, and obeyed. L,o no sense could this be considek'ed a binding COll.tn;tct. Between persons sui juri8 it would be set aside in equity. 1t1uch more,will it be disregarded by a court ofadmiralty whenn'J,ade by a seaman,. ,who is treated by the court as under its peculiar proteG-, tion,at;ldparticularly when ,made by him on ship,board, while undet the control of the officers of the, ·vessel. ,,The alleged special contract being out of the way, the remaining question is wlJ,at libelant is entitled to. I do not think his services worth mOl'e than $15 per month. I fix them at that amount, as it is what he says he was paid for the voyage from Stollewallto Philadelphia. I should allow $25, which appears to be the regular rate on vessels oUhis <?lass, but for the fact that libelant, though acting as a sailor, was a landsman, and liable to seasickness, which, on occasions (he says Qnly two days;, thetllaster makes, the time longer) disabled him from cooking. Judgment for libelant for $10. and costs.
KIDNEY et al. v. SALVAGE-COMPENSATION.
THE OCEAN PRINCE.
, (District OOU'1't, E. D. TeIlo8. March Term; 1889.) Libelants, 16 in number, were engaged in receiving cotton from lighterboats. ,and /ltorjng it in the defendant ship, anchored some miles from Galveston, When libelants quit work for the day, 300 or 400 "bales of lOose cotton were left 'on deck, nertr the kitchen, waiting to" be stored in the hold. where some 4,O()() bales had been stored by them, They slept on the ship, and had their own cook the time they were loading the vessel. About 5 o'clock A. M. the loose cotton bales were discovered bv someone to be on fire. Th'e libelants promptly rendered valuable service; which was necessary 00 assure the safety of the ship and cargo, Held that, however valuable and necess!U'y the service of a sailor or passenger may have been in extinguishing a fire which threatens to destroy a vessel, or imperils its cargo and the lives of all on board. it is well known that public policy forbids that either should be fe' warded as salvors when the work or service rendered by them is not beyond, but within, the line of such duties as substantially and in the nature of things were in their j)re'existing covenant with the vessel; and that the reasons and principles ,which suggest the public policy mentioned, warrant admiralty courts in considering the .libelants' relations to defendant vessel as not es-. sentially different from those Of sailors and passengers in a vessel in distress, ,and in refusing the allowance of salvage rewardto,chem. (St/llabu8 b1/; ,the ,