Salvage. General Principles on which Salvage is allowed.

thing saved or not. If he refuses, the thing only | sel and cargo were considered in the admiralty is answerable for salvage. But if he receives the as derelict. Ibid. goods, though the lien in the article may be gone, and especially if it passes to a third person, yet the right to salvage continues. It becomes a personal claim, founded on the transaction at sea, and must be prosecuted in personam, in the admiralty. Brevoor v. The Fair American, 1 Pe

207. Salvage must always be a reasonable al- 220. If salvors, in effecting a salvage service, lowance, to be fixed by the court upon conside-themselves fall into distress, and are relieved by ration of the circumstances. All agreements, other salvors, they do not lose their original right therefore, entered into in situations of distress at to salvage, but the second salvors only partake sea, are contrary to law, and will be set aside. of the salvage in proportion to their merit. Ibid. Schutz v. The Mary, Bee's D. C. R. 139.

209. Wherever the service has been rendered in saving property at sea, or wrecked on the coast of the sea, the service is, in the sense of the maritime law, a salvage service. If a contract for compensation for saving her has been made, it does not alter the case, but fixes a rule as to the rate to govern the court. The Emulous, 1 Sum-admiralty for salvage, neither party is bound to ner's C. C. R. 210.

Who may be Salvors.

228. In salvage cases, the general rule is to decree all costs and charges in the case to be borne and paid by the property saved, and apportioned among the claimants according to their respective interests. The only admitted exceptions are, where the charges have been occasioned by the gross neglect or laches of the claimant, in which case they are to be borne by him; or where the right has been forfeited by the conduct of the salvors, in which case the court refuses any allowance to them, and compels guilty parties to bear their own expenses and charges. Ibid.

employ lighters to discharge her cargo in order to float her. It is properly a salvage service, involving duties and responsibilities for which his employment may peculiarly fit him, but yet in no sense included in the duty of navigating the ship. Ibid.

235. The case of the Hope was one where the libellants acted as salvors, and not as pilots. They had, at the time, no particular relation to the distressed ship. They proffered useful services as volunteers, without any pre-existing covenant that connected them with the duty of employing themselves for her preservation. The duties they undertook were far beyond any belonging to pilots, and precisely those belonging to salvors. Ibid.

229. If a ship is seized under an usurped authority of a foreign government, and recaptured by the crew, they are entitled to salvage; and the decree of an American court in rem will be 236. If an officer, acting as such, exceeds the deemed conclusive on the right, unless fraud be bounds of his official duty, by giving extraordishown. Williams v. The Suffolk Ins. Co., 3 Sum-nary assistance to save property, he is entitled ner's C. C. R. 270.

to salvage. The Tiger, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 567.

237. It is no objection to the claim for salvage, that the interference or assistance of the salvors did not arise from a desire to preserve the property, or benefit the owner. Ibid.

238. What a pilot does beyond the limits of his duty as such, may be the foundation of a claim for salvage; but there is no claim for salvage, when the acts are within his duties as pilot. Hand v. The Elvira, Gilpin's D. C. R. 65.

239. If property, abandoned by the master and crew, be taken possession of by a set of salvors, a second set have no right to interfere with them, and become participators in the salvage; unless it appear that the first would have been unable to effect the purpose without the aid of the others. Ibid. 67.

The

232. A pilot, while acting within the strict line of his duty, however he may entitle himself to extraordinary pilotage compensation for extraordinary services, as contradistinguished from ordinary pilotage for ordinary services, cannot 240. Apprentices to the owners of the saving be entitled to claim salvage. In this respect he vessel, who are entitled to a portion of the salis not distinguished from any other officer, pub-vage adjudged to those who were actively enlic or private, acting within the appropriate gaged in the saving, are entitled to the portions sphere of his duty. But a pilot, as such, is not allowed to them, and not their masters. disabled, in virtue of his office, from becoming Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; 1 Cond. Rep. 397. a salvor. On the contrary, whenever he performs salvage services beyond the line of his appropriate duties, or under circumstances to which those duties do not justly attach, he stands in the same relation to the property as any other salvor; that is, with a title to compensation to the extent of the merit of his services, viewed in the light of a liberal public policy. Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Peters, 108.

233. Seamen, in the ordinary course of things, in the performance of their duties, are not allowed to become salvors, whatever may have been the perils or hardships, or gallantry of their services in saving the ship and cargo. Extraordinary events may occur, in which their connexion with the ship may be dissolved de facto, or by operation of the law, or they may exceed their proper duty, in which cases they may be permitted to claim as salvors. Ibid.

234. It is not within the scope of the positive duties of a pilot to go to the rescue of a wrecked vessel, and employ himself in saving her or her cargo, when she was wholly unnavigable. That is a duty entirely distinct in its nature, and no more belonging to a pilot than it would be to supply such a vessel with masts or sails, or to

241. Where a seaman had been left by the master of the vessel, which he and all others than him who had belonged to her had abandoned as a wreck on the ocean, and he with others, who had found the vessel in this condition, carried her into a place of safety; a portion of the salvage was allowed to the seaman. Ibid.

242. The salvage allowed to a slave who was one of the salvors, was adjudged to his master. The master agreed to manumit the slave, and to give him one-fifth of the sum allowed to the slave as salvage. Ibid.

243. A freighter is not entitled to salvage, unless by his act he discharge the insurer or owner of the vessel from liability for the deviation by which the property has been saved. Bond v. The Corea, 2 Adm. Decis. 361.

244. An American vessel was captured by an enemy, and, after condemnation and sale to an enemy, was recaptured by an American privateer. The original owner claimed the vessel, offering to allow salvage. Held, that this was not a case for salvage, under the act of congress of March 3, 1800, chap. 168, or the prize act of June 26, 1812, ch. 450. The property had become completely divested by the capture and

Forfeiture of Right or Claim to Salvage.-Rates and Proportions of Salvage.

condemnation. The Star, 3 Wheat. 78; 4 Cond. | sessions, on the 15th of September, 1799, and Rep. 198. ordered to St. Domingo. She was recaptured by the American frigate Constitution, and sent to New York. At the time of the capture and recapture, under the French decrees of 18th January, 1798, the French cruisers captured neutral vessels laden with the productions of the British productors; and the French decree declares such vessels good prize. Salvage of onesixth of the nett value of the vessel and cargo was allowed to the frigate, after deducting the expenses incurred. Ibid.

258. A vessel and cargo were abandoned by the master and crew in the bay of Delaware, 250. Spoliation, or even gross neglect, may without anchors or cables, and dismasted. She forfeit all pretensions of the salvors for compen-was in danger of being driven out to sea. sation. The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152; 5 half of the cargo was allowed for salvage. Cond. Rep. 40. Peisch et al. v. Ware, 4 Cranch, 347; 2 Cond. Rep. 137.

Rates and Proportions of Salvage.

271. A vessel found on shore on the Bahama bank, deserted and abandoned, was with great labour, difficulty and danger, brought into the United States, and one moiety of the nett proceeds of vessel and cargo allowed for salvage. Conklin et al. v. The Harmony, 1 Adm. Decis. 34.

by the mere extent of labour, but is a result 31. Brevoor v. The Ship Fair American, Ibid. from the combination of various considerations. 87. The value of the property saved, the degree of hazard in which it was placed, the enterprise, intrepidity and danger of the service, and the policy of a liberal allowance for the timely interposition of marine assistance, all conspire to heighten the amount. Where the value of the property is small, and the hazard is great, the allowance is always in a greater proportion. On the other hand, where the value is large and the services not highly meritorious, the proportion is diminished. Sound policy dictates that the compensation should not, in general, be less than one-third, unless the property be very valuable, or the services very inconsiderable. Tyson v. Prior, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 133.

262. An appellate court in questions of the rate of salvage should not nicely balance the subordinate distinctions of cases, whose complexions carry a plain merit and humane interposition. Ibid.

263. In cases of derelict, it was the ancient rule to give salvors a moiety of the property saved. This rule has become obsolete, and, de jure, salvors are not entitled to claim a moiety. Rowe v. The Brig —, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 376. 264. The old rule of one-half as salvage in cases of derelict, ought to be adhered to, unless special circumstances, which it is incumbent on the claimant to exhibit, show it should be departed from. Ibid.

265. The law of France gives, in all cases, one-third of the gross value in cases of derelict as salvage; nor have I met with a single instance in which a lower rate of salvage is established by the municipal law of modern nations. SroRY, J. Ibid. 375.

266. But the rule is flexible, and there may be cases in which it would be proper to allow the salvors of a derelict little more than a quantum meruit, for work and labour, when there was little difficulty or peril. Ibid. 376.

267. Salvage should always comprehend a reward for the risk of life and property, the labour and damage of the undertaking, and should be so liberal as to afford a sufficient inducement to similar exertions. The Cora, 2 Adm. Decis.

361.

268. Unless in cases of very extraordinary or of very small merit, or where the property saved has been to that at risk in a ratio very much short of a just compensation; where a vessel has been found totally deserted at sea, and brought into port, one-third has been the most usual rate. Ibid.

272. A vessel was found at sea in great distress, and after great peril and exertion brought into port; one-half of the nett proceeds were allowed as salvage. Morehouse et al. v. The Jefferson, 1 Adm. Decis. 46.

273. A vessel found derelict at sea. Salvage of one-half the nett proceeds were allowed. The Priscilla, Bee's Dist. C. R. 1.

274. Á vessel with slaves on board, but without any white person, considered as derelict, and one-third of the nett proceeds allowed as salvage. The Leander, Bee's Dist. C. R. 261.

275. Whatever may be the service rendered, the court never give more than half by way of salvage; and will restore the remainder to the owners. Cross v. The Bellona, Bee's D. C. R. 139.

276. A vessel and cargo rescued from great peril, on the coast of Massachusetts, one-eighth allowed for salvage. The Emulous, 1 Sumner's C. C. R. 208.

277. In cases of derelict, the habit of the court of admiralty is to allow one moiety as salvage. That proportion is not departed from, unless under extraordinary circumstances. The Ship Henry Ewbank, 1 Sumner's C. C. R. 400.

278. In the distribution of salvage, the owner of the saving ship ought, under ordinary circumstances, to be allowed one third of the salvage. In cases of extraordinary merit, or extraordinary peril to the ship, he may found a claim to higher salvage. Ibid.

279. The brig Hope, with a valuable cargo, had been conducted, in the evening, by a pilot inside of Mobile Point, where pilots of the outer harbour usually leave vessels which they pilot inside of that bar. The pilot was discharged, and the Hope proceeded up the bay of Mobile. The wind soon after changed, blew a violent gale from the northwest, both anchors parted, and the Hope was driven on a shoal outside of the point, among the east breakers. The gale increased to a hurricane, and forced the vessel on her beam ends, and her masts and bowsprit were cut away. The master and crew deserted her to save their lives. After various fruitless efforts to save her, the libellants, all pilots of the outer harbour of Mobile, two days after she was stranded, and while yet in great peril, succeeded; and she was brought up to the city of Mobile by them, towed by their pilot boat, assisted by a steamboat employed by them. On a libel for salvage, the district court of the United States 270. The general principle of salvage is not for the district of Alabama, allowed, as salvage, confined to a mere quantum meruit, but is made one-third of 15,299 dollars and 58 cents, the apto comprehend a reward for the risk of life and praised value of the brig and cargo. The ownproperty, labour and danger in the undertaking, ers of the brig and cargo appealed to the supreme as well as a premium, operating as an induce- court. It was held by the court, on the appeal, ment to similar exertions. Clayton v. The Har- that the amount of salvage allowed by the dismony, 1 Adm. Decis. 80. Warder v. Goods, Ibid. | trict court was certainly not, under the circum

269. In cases of salvage, where the rate of compensation rests on the discretion of the court, no very strong objection can exist against adopting the rule of reciprocity. Armroyd et al. v. Williams et al. 2 Wash. C. C. R. 508.

Seamen's Wages. General Principles.

stances of the case, unreasonable. This court said it was not in the habit of revising such decrees as to the amount of salvage, unless upon some clear and palpable mistake, or gross overallowance of the court below. It is equally against sound policy and public convenience to encourage appeals of this sort in matters of discretion, unless there has been some violation of the just principles which ought to regulate the subject. Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Peters, 108.

maritime laws, an indisputable lien to this extent. There is no difference between the case of a restitution of the ship herself, and a restoration in value. The lien reattaches to the thing, and to whatever is substituted for it. This is no peculiar principle of the admiralty. It is found incorporated into the doctrines of courts of common law. Ibid.

283. Freight, being the earnings of the ship in the course of the voyage, is the natural fund 280. The amount of salvage to be allowed, out of which the wages are contemplated to be must be estimated by the compound considera-paid; for although the ship is bound by the lien tion of the danger and importance of the service; the value of the property saved, is an essential circumstance in estimating the latter. Hand v. The Elvira, Gilpin's D. C. R. 68.

SEAMEN'S WAGES.

General Principles.

of the wages, the freight is relied on as the fund to discharge it, and is also relied on by the master to discharge his personal responsibilities. Ibid.

bottomry, and salvage; and is equally applicable to the case of wages. The lien will follow the ship, into what hands soever she may come, by title or purchase from the owner. Ibid.

285. The contract of a seaman for his wages is a distinct contract, although he may sign the same shipping articles with others. He is not understood to contract jointly, or to incur responsibility for any other person. The contract is so contemplated by the act of congress. Oliver et al. v. Alexander et al., 6 Peters, 143.

286. Every seaman may sue severally in a court of common law for his wages. But a different practice prevails in the admiralty, as a special favour and peculiar privilege to seamen. Ibid.

284. Over the subject of seamen's wages, the admiralty has an undisputed jurisdiction, in rem as well as in personam; and wherever the lien for the wages exists and attaches upon the pro281. The ship Warren, owned in Baltimore, ceeds, it is the familiar practice of that court to sailed from that port in 1806; the officers and exert its jurisdiction over them, by way of moseamen having shipped to perform a voyage to nition to the parties holding the proceeds. This the northwest coast of America, thence to Can-is familiarly known in the cases of prize, and ton, and thence to the United States. The ship proceeded under the instructions of the owners to Conception bay, on the coast of Chili, by the orders of the supercargo; he having full authority for that purpose. The cargo had in fact been put on board for an illicit trade, against the laws of Spain, on that coast. After the arrival of the Warren, she was seized by the Spanish authorities, the vessel and cargo condemned, and the proceeds ordered to be deposited in the royal chest. The officers and seamen were imprisoned, and returned to the United States, some after eighteen months, and others not until four years from the time of their departure. The king of Spain subsequently ordered the proceeds of the Warren and cargo to be repaid to the owners, but this was not done; afterwards, the owners, having become insolvent, assigned their claims for the restoration of the proceeds, and for indemnity from Spain, to their separate creditors: and the commissioners under the Florida treaty awarded to be paid to the assignees a sum of money, part for the cargo, part for the freight, and part for the ship Warren. The officers and seamen having proceeded against the owners of the ship by libel for their wages, claiming them by reason of the change of voyage, from the time of her departure until their return to the United States, respectively; and having afterwards claimed payment out of the money paid to the assignees of the owners under the treaty; it was held that they were entitled, towards the satisfaction of the same, to the sum awarded by the commissioners for the loss of the ship and her freight, with certain deductions for the expenses of prosecuting the claim before the commissioners, with interest on the amount from the period when a claim for the same from the assignees was made by a petition. Sheppard and others v. Taylor and others, 5 Peters, 675.

282. If the ship had been specifically restored, the seamen might have proceeded against her in the admiralty in a suit in rem for the whole compensation due to them. They have, by the

287. Although the libel is joint in its form, the contract is always treated as a several distinct contract with each seaman. Ibid.

288. The defence which is good against one seaman, may be wholly inapplicable to another. One may have been paid; another may not have performed the service; and another may have forfeited, in whole or in part, his claim to wages. But no decree whatever, which is made in regard to such claims, can possibly avail to the prejudice of the merits of others, which do not fall within, the same predicament. And wherever, from the nature of the defence, it is inapplicable to the whole crew, the answer invariably contains separate averments, and is applied to each claim, according to its own peculiar circumstances. Ibid.

289. The decree follows the same rule, and assigns to each seaman, severally, the amount to which he is entitled; and dismisses the libel as to those, and those only, who have maintained no right to the interposition of the court in their favour. Ibid.

290. The whole proceeding, though it assumes the form of a joint suit, is in reality a mere joinder of distinct causes of action by distinct parties, growing out of the same contract; and bears some analogy to the known practice at