« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
box, and the fire department of the city of New Orleans were quickly on the spot. The main hatch having been opened, the fire-engines immediately commenced to throw water down the main hatch, which they continued to do until nine o'clock A. M., when the main hatch was closed, and the steam gasboat Protector, being provided with apparatus for the manufacture of carbonic acid gas, commenced to attempt to extinguish the fire, which at that time was raging quite violently in the hold, by attempting to fill the vessel with carbonic acid gas. This continued until nine o'clock P. M., when the main hatch was opened, and it was found that there was less smoke than there had been before the experiment with the gas had commenced. The engineer of the Protector went down the main hatch, and having hooked onto some bales of the cotton they were hoisted up and landed on the levee greatly charred. In the mean time the fire-engines were pumping in water through the hatch hole, and the smoke was increasing. A hole was then cut in the deck abreast the main rigging on the starboard side, and some fourteen bales of cotton were got out of this hole. At six o'clock P. M. smoke was greatly increasing and the hatches were again pnt on, and the hole in the deck covered, and the Protector again commenced pouring carbonic acid gas into the hold of the vessel, and continued doing so during the night. While these things were going on the harbor tug-boats, the Continental, the N. M. Jones, the Belle Darlington, the Fern, the Aspinwall, the Charlie Wood, the Ida, the Ella Wood No. 2, the Joseph Cooper, Jr., and the Wasp, had all got there, hearing that the vessel was in peril, and were, with the fire department, engaged in pouring water, with their more or less powerful pumps, upon the fire, at all times when the gas experiments were not going on. Arriving at the scene of the disaster, some earlier than others, they were all there during the whole of the first day.
"On Monday, the twenty-fifth of February, at six o'clock in the morning, the main hatch was opened, and the hole that had been made in the deck was uncovered, and the smoke was found to be greatly increased; some thirty-two bales of cotton were at this time taken out by the stevedores. The fire department was hard at work pumping water, and several holes were cut in the decks, trying to get at the seat of the fire. The main pumps were taken up to allow the hose suction to be put down, and the Protector and the steamengines were pumping out the water part of the day, but the smoke kept on increasing. At six o'clock P. M. there were twelve feet six inches of water in the hold, and the draft of water aft was twenty-three feet eight inches, and forward twenty-five feet six inches. At eleven and a half P. M. the smoke was still increasing and appearing, and the crew were employed in landing the sails and new ropes, sizing stuff, and all that could be got at, on the wharf. On Tuesday, the twenty-sixth of February, at six o'clock A. M., Canby, the regular stevedore of the vessel, and his men, came on board and landed the boats and water-casks on the wharf, tore up the forward deck and carlings, and commenced to save cargo. By noon the stevedore Drysdale had 181 bales landed and Mr. Canby 100. The fire department were pouring in water during the night and all the forenoon, and still the smoke increased, and by noon the men were forced to come up from the hold, and the fire brigade were set to work to fill the ship with water, it having been determined by the captain that the only chance of saving any part of the ship or cargo was to fill her with water and sink her, it being deemed impossible to stop the fire otherwise; and about 7 o'clock P. M. of Tuesday, February 26th, the ship sank, the water being two or three feet above the main deck.
"On Wednesday, February 27th, Ellis, the master, and Schultz, the agent, of the Tornado made a contract with the tow-boat association to which the Norman, Rio Grande, and Harry Wright belonged, to pump out the Tornado for a compensation of $50 per hour for each boat, to be continued until the boats were discharged. After the making of said contract, and while the Tornado still lay upon the bottom of the river, the Protector filed libel for salvage against the Tornado and cargo, and by virtue of a warrant issued on said libel tho United States marshal seized the Tornado and cargo, when the said tow-boats were about to begin pumping her out. After the seizure the marshal took possession of the Tornado and displaced the authority of the master, but permitted the said tow-boats to proceed and pump out the Tornado. The said tow-boats commenced pumping out the Tornado early in the evening of February 27th, assisted by other tugs and the fire department of the city of New Orleans, and succeeded with said assistance, at 12 o'clock m. of Thursday, February 28th, in raising the Tornado and placing her in a position of safety. The efficient work of pumping out the Tornado was done between 6 A. M. and 12 m. of February 28th. The said pumping service was done without serious danger to the tow-boats by which it was rendered. The total valuation of the property saved was $140,090.75. The value of the tow-boats in the aggregate was $75,000; and their daily expenses were each $100, when actually at work. The usual charge made by tugs in the port of New Orleans is from $6 to $12 per hour for pumping. The said tow-boats remained alongside the Tornado after she was raised, ready to render her assistance in case it was needed, for the period of about 12 days, but such attendance was unnecessary and not required by any peril of the Tornado and cargo, and the fire department of the city was also at hand ready to extinguish a fire in the Tornado should-it again break out. The three tow-boats of the appellants, at the time of making the contract, were out of service, laid up on the other side of the river, without crews or provisions, but were immediately manned and victualed and brought over and laid along-side of the Tornado in the afternoon of Wednesday, the twenty-seventh of February. At that time there were no other tow-boats along-side of the Tornado. The said tow-boats were provided with machinery and pumps for extinguishing fires and pumping out sunken ships."
The circuit court found the following conclusions of law from these facts: (1) The contract made by the master and agent of the Tornado for pumping her out was inequitable, and ought not, under the facts of the case, to be enforced; (2) the service rendered by the three tow-boats was a salvage service, but one of low grade; (3) each of them should be allowed $1,000; (4) the costs of the appeal should be paid out of the fund in the registry. The decree was that the owners of each tug recover $1,000 from the fund in the registry, and that the costs of appeal be paid out of that fund.
The sole question to be considered on the appeal of the appellants is whether the amounts which the circuit court awarded to them seyerally, as owners of the three steam-tugs, should be increased. The errors assigned by the appellants are (1) that the circuit court held that the contract for pumping out the ship was inequitable, and ought not, under the facts of the case, to be enforced; (2) that it held that the salvage service was of a low grade; (3) that it allowed to each boat only $1,000. These are all assigned as errors in conclusions of law. There is no complaint made by the libelants of the conclusion of law that the service was a salvage service.
In the case of The Connemara, at the last term, [2 Sup. Cr. REP. 754,] this court said:
“ The services performed being salvage services, the amount of salvage to be awarded, although stated by the circuit court in the form of a conclusion
of law, is largely a matter of fact and discretion, which cannot be reduced to precise rules, but depends upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each case.”
We are of opinion that no ground is shown, on the facts found, for awarding a larger sum to the appellants than the circuit court allowed them. The contract, as found, was a contract made by the master and the agent of the ship with the association to which the three tugs belonged, “to pump out” the ship, for a compensation of $50 per hour for each boat, “to be continued until the boats were discharged.” This does not give a very clear idea as to what the contract was. If the pumping out should be completed there could be no continuance of the service of pumping out the ship, or of the contract, as a contract to pump out the ship. If the contract was that the compensation named should continue, in any event, and whether the ship was pumped out or not, until the boats should be discharged, the attendance of the boats along-side of the ship after she was pumped out and raised and placed in a position of safety, the boats being ready to render assistance, in case it was needed, for a period of about 12 days, is found to have been unnecessary, and not required by any peril of the Tornado and cargo. It is not found, as a fact, that the boats were formally discharged by the master or agent of the ship. But it is found that after the contract was made, and while the ship still lay at the bottom of the river, and when the boats were about to begin to pump her out, the marshal seized the ship and cargo under a warrant on a libel for salvage filed against the ship and cargo, and took possession of the ship, and displaced the authority of the master, but permitted the boats to proceed and pump out the ship; and that they, with other assistance, pumped out the ship, and raised her and placed her in a position of safety by a pumping service of about 18 hours. It is not found that the marshal requested or sanctioned in any way the continued presence of the tugs after the ship was raised and made safe. The authority of the master was displaced by the marshal. On these facts we are of opinion that*to enforce the contract as one continuing during the time claimed by the libelants would be highly inequitable; and that, as against the insurers of the cargo, the right of the boats to compensation must be regarded as having terminated when the ship and cargo were raised, and the boats must be regarded as having been then discharged, within any fair interpretation which can be given to the contract. A compensation of $50 per hour for the 18 hours of actual pumping would amount to $900. Every agreement for salvage compensation is subject, as to amount, to the judgment of the court as to its being equitable and conformable to the merits of the case.
Pars. Shipp. 306; The Helen and George, Swab. 368; Jones, Salv. 94 et seq.
The final decree of the circuit court was entered on the twentyfourth of May, 1880. On the twenty-sixth of June following, the underwriters on the cargo filed a petition in the circuit court, praying & cross-appeal to this court from the decree, and it was allowed, returnable at the October term, 1880. On the fifth of July following, the bond on the cross-appeal was filed in the circuit court. But the appellants, in the cross-appeal, did not docket it, or enter their appearance on it, in this court, until September 27, 1883; and the appellees in it are entitled to have it dismissed. Grigsby v. Purcell, 99 U. 8. 505; The S. S. Osborne, 105 U. 8. 447.
The cross-appeal is dismissed, and, on the appeal of the libelants, the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
WRIT OF ERROR-FAILURE TO NAME RETURN-DAY-DEFECT, HOW CURED JUDGMENT AFFIRMED UNDER ROLE 6-APPEAL FOR PUR
POSES OF DELAY,
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada. On motion to dismiss, with which is united, under rule 6, a motion to affirm.
Wm. Woodburn, for plaintiff in error.
WAITE, C. J. The writ of error in this case was not made return. able on any particular day. This, if the defect is not cured by amendment, entitles the defendant in error to a dismissal; but the plaintiff in error asks leave, under the authority of section 1005, Rev. St., to amend the writ by inserting the proper return-day. That leave we grant, and therefore overrule the motion to dismiss; but, on looking into the record, we find the case was manifestly brought here for delay only. All the questions presented are so frivolous as not to need further argument. The motion to affirm is granted. Judgment affirmed.
1 See 17 Fed. Rep. 912
(109 U. 8. 174)
Ex parte STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA."
(November 5, 1883.) ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION-SUIT FOR PILOTAGE FEES-ERROR IN JUDGMENT, HOW
CORRECTED_APPEAL, HOW PROVIDED FOR.
The ruling in Ex parte Hagar, 104 U. 8. 520, followed.
not be corrected by a writ of prohibition; the remedy, if any, is by appeal. Congress alone has the power to determine whether the judgment of a court of the
United States, of competent jurisdiction, shall be reviewed or not. If it fail to provide for such a review the judgment stands as the judgment of the court of last resort, and settles finally the rights of the parties involved.
Application for a Writ of Prohibition.
H. G. Ward and M. P. Henry, for petitioner.
Waite, C. J. We are unable to distinguish this case in principle from Ex parte Hagar, 104 U. S. 520, where it was held, on the author. ity of Ex parte Gordon, Id. 515, that as the admiralty court had ju. risdiction of the vessel sued, and the subject-matter of the suit, it could not be restrained by & writ of prohibition from deciding all questions properly arising in that suit. This, like that, is a suit for pilotage fees, and the question is whether a statute of Delaware, under which the fees are claimed, is valid. If valid in Delaware it is in Pennsylvania, and the court sitting in Pennsylvania is as competent to decide that question in a suit of which it has jurisdiction as a court in Delaware. The jurisdiction of the court in Pennsylvania is no more dependent on the validity of the law than was that of the court in Delaware. The subject-matter of the suit is a claim of a Delaware pilot for his pilotage fees under a Delaware statute, and the sole question in the case is whether the fees are recoverable. The vessel when seized was confessedly within the jurisdiction of the court in Pennsylvania, and she was properly brought into court to answer the claim which was made upon her. About that there is no dispute, as there was at the last term in Re Devoe Manuf'g Co. 108 U. S. (S. C. 2 Sup. Ct. REP. 894,] where the question was as to the right of the court in New Jersey to send its process to the place where the seizure was made. There, the question was as to the jurisdiction of the court over a particular place; here, as to the liability of a vessel confessedly seized within the territorial jurisdiction of the court cpon a claim subject to judicial determination in an admiralty pro. ceeding. The evident purpose of this application is to correct a supposed error in a judgment of an admiralty court on the merits of an action. That cannot be done by prohibition. The remedy, if any, is by appeal. If an appeal will not lie, then the parties are concluded
18. C. sub nom. The Charles A. Sparks and The Agnes R. Bucon, 16 Fed. Rep. 480.