LONG V. THE TAMPICO.
491
Of the residue of the award $250 should be allowed to the captain of the Levy, and the captain of the Purcell; the remainder to be divided equally among the remaining 16 Illen who rendered assistance, including the crew of the two tuga, Gtaham, and the other persons whose names have been presented as petitioners on the trial, with costs to the libelants in each case.
LONG SAME
v. v.
THE TAMPICO. 'fIn: PROGRESSO. :May 22, 1883.)
(Di8trict Court, 8. D. New York.
A reasonable apprehension of immediate danger "is a sufficient basis for an award of salvage compensation for rescuing vessels from fire. 2. SUIT AGAINST UNITED STATEs-IN PERSONAM.
No suit can blj maintained against the gover.nment in per8onam,. and the same immunit.y is extended by comity to foreign sovereigns with whom this country is at peace, and no attaul1ment or garnishee process can be susta.:ned at common law, whereby the public property·of a foreign government can be attached. 3. SAME-IN REM.
No suit in rem in admiralty can be sustained, or seizure made by the marshal, under process against property of the government devoted to public uses, and 10 possession of an officer of the government.
4.
FOREIGN GOVERlfMENTS-IM:lIUNITY FROM
Surr.
The same immunity. from seizure is by comity extended. to the property of a foreign government in the public service and in possession of its officers. 5. SAME-ATTACHMENTS IN REM.
Attae,hments in rem may, however, be enforced by seizure in admiralty a.l!'jj,inst property of the government, if it be not at the time of the seizure in the public service, or in the possession of any officer of the government, but in the hands of a private bailee, for transportation merely. No greater exemption can be claimed in behalf of the property of a foreign government. 6 SAME-SALVAGE-BUXDEN OF PROOF.
In claiming exemption from seizure upon a iien forllalvage services, the bur. den of proof is upon those. claiming the exemption. and it should' appear clearly that the property had become the property of tl1e government, and 10 possession of some person proved to be its officer or representative.
7.
SAME-IMMUNITy-By WHOM CLAIMED.
·
Immunity from seizure ca,n only be claimed by the' 'gpvernment itself, or by some provedorreeognized officer or Rgent interveuing in its behalf. Interven. tion by a private citizen merely describing himself as al!'ent. without proof. should not be deemed sufficient.
FEDERAL RErORTER.
8.
CASE STATED.
Where two steam-cutters, the P. and the T., desIgned for the public service of Mexico, were constructed in New York, under a contract with one 0 .· describing himself as agent of the :Mexican government, and after completion were delivered to O. at New by whom they were turne1 over to Capts. H. and D., to be taken by them to Vera Cruz, for the sum of $300 each, and there delivered to the :Mexican authorities; and on the following day, after being placl:d in charge of Capts. H. and D., were rl:scued by the steam-tug J. from a fire which broke out near the wharf where they were lying, and the actnal authority of 0., or his relations to the Mexican government, or his contract with them, if any, did not appear,-held, that the two cutters were sUbject to a lien for salvage, nnd that the libel against them should be sllstained, as it did not appear clearly that the property in the vessels had passed to the Mexican government; and because, if it had passed, they were not at the time of the libel in the pUblic service of that government, nor in possession of any officer thercof.
In Admiralty. Beebe, Wilcox & Hobb8 and R. D. Benedict, for libelants. Conder.t Bros., for claimants. BROWN, J. The libels in the above cases were filed by the owners of the steam-tug Joe, and all others in interest, to recover compensation for services alleged to be of a salvage character, in rescuing the Tampico and the ProgresBo from a fire which broke out at Pratt's oil doc,ks, on Sunday evening, August 8, 1880. Salvage compensation has been recently allowed by this court for services rendered to the Cyclone, (ante, 486,) in the same fire. Some of the facts bearing upon the present claim are there stated, and need not be here recapitulated. The Tampico and the Progresso were two small steamers, about 65 teet in length, which had just been built at Greenpoint, and were de signed for the Mexican government, to be used as revenue cutters. At the time the fire broke out on board the Nictau they lay moored Jl>long-side of each other, on th.e side of the slip opposite the Nictau, 100 to 125 feet distant from her, on the southerly side of the Manhattan railway pier, and from 100 to 150 feet inside of'the outer end of that pier. The engineer and the fireman, with the aid of some other, attendants, hauled the Tampico towards the outer end of the pier, and there hailed the steam-tug Joe, which had come up to render assistance. The tug made fast to the Tampico and hauled her a short distance away from danger of the fire, and. immediately returne.d and towed the Progresso, which had also been. moved out towards the end oithe slip, to the same place, and afterwards towed them both to a place of safety. As theProgresso was towed out from the slip, the Cyclone, already on fiie, across the slip, and
LONG
v.
THE TAMPICO.
498
her bows, carried upward by the flood-tide, struck the piles nea.r the end of the pier where the Tampico and Progresso had been, and there became entangled so as to obstruct further egress from the slip until she was towed away. A third cutter, the Campeachy, lying further inside the slip, having her retreat thus cut off, was carried as far as possible the bulk-head, where she escaped injury. At the time when the Joe was called and rendered her assistance, thf:lre were evident grounds of alarm for the safety of the cutters. The sails of the Progresso had caught fire, but the flames had been put out by the use of pails of water. The extent of the fire could not be foreseen; the situation was one of strong apprehension of immediate danger; and that isa sufficient basis for an award of salvage compensation. McOonnochie v. Kerr, 9 FED. REP. 50, 58; and cases t.here cited. There is some question whether in the strongtiood-tide the few: hands then on board these vessels would have been able to haul either of them out beyond the end of the pier, on account of the strong pressure against the end of the pier as soon as the vf:lssels were brought out so as to catch the strong upward current. But I .think the evidence shows that even if the men on board could have dO.J;letbis, bdorethey would have,];l\lod time to accomplish it unaided, the Cyclone, which had been cut loose:to escape fl'om the Nictau, in drifting to the pier where she becar,ne entangled, would have crashed into one or both ofthe cutters, andinfiicted more or less severe damage, and possibly have sunk them. The assistance rendered by the Joe was, therefore, most timely. It was the first help that arrived at. the spot. The service was, howmore than half an hour,.altogether,-wasno.t diffiever, cult to,perform, and was towage only; nor was it attended with danger to life or limb. Objectidn is made, howevet, that these were at this time the property of the Mexican government, and in itspossessiori.,and were,therefore, exempt from seizure under process of this court for the of the salvage olaim. The answers deny that said vessels. were within the admiralty.and maritime jurisdictioll of the court,and aver that "said steamers were foreign public vessels, owned and commissioned by the.· republio of Mexioo, a sovereign state at p.eace with United States, and exempt from the' jurisdiotion of the OQurts of this The question thus presented has been carefully argued upon both sides. The elaborate and ex4austive examination given to thesupjeot of the exemption of the property of &. sovereign power.· in the. oases of · . ' I
494
REPORTER.
The FJxchange, 7 Cranch, 117; Briggs v. Light-boat8, 11 Allen, (Mass.) 157; and The Parlement Belg,e, (1880,) on appeal, (5 Prob. Div.197,) renders superfluous any further examination of the general principles involved. These cases fully sustain the general proposition that the property of a government,:while in its possession and employed in or devoted. to the public use, is exempt from judicial process, on the ground that the exercise of such jurisdiction ill inconsistent with the independence of the sovereign authority and the necessities of the public sel'Vice. In the late case of The Fidelity, 16 Blatchf. 569, the being the property of the municipality of this city, and devoted in its daily operations to the public uses, was upon this ground held exempt from seizure on a claim of damage, and the libel in rem was dismissed. W UTE, C. J., says: "A public vessel is part of the sovereignty to which she belongs. and herliability is merged in' that of the sovereign. Under such circumstances redress must besougllt from the sovereign, and not from the insti'uments heuses in the. exercise of his legitimate functions."
He adds: "Property does not necessarily become a part of the sovereignty because it. is owned by the sovereign; To make it so, it mllst be devoted to the public use, and must bl!l employed in carrying on the operations of the government.'"
Iuthe case of Brigg8 v. Light.boat8, GRU, J.,says: "After they had once come into the possession of the United States for public uses, whether remaining at the builder's wharf or at the station of their final anchorage, or on their way from the one to the other, they were· subject to the exclusive control of the executive government of the United: States,and could not be interfered with by state process. The immunity from such interference arises, not because they are instruments of war, .but because they are instruments of sovereignty, and does nut depend on the extent or manner of their actual use at any particular moment, but on the purpose to which they are devoted,"
In the last case the light-boats had been constructed for the uses of the United States government, and attachment proceedings weretaken against the vessels under a lien law of Massachusetts in favor' of :workmen; but prior to the commencement of the suit the vesselshad been over by the cOhtractors to the United States authorities, who had already fully. paid for them :andhad partly manned and equipped them for their destined public uses. GRU, J., says: "If they [the petitioners J had filed their petitions and attached the vessels before these came into the (if the United States, they might well. have contended that the courts of-the commun wealth !tau accluired a juristlic-
4:95 of the suits.,
tion of the which could not be. was accomplished!'
until the
In the case of The Davis, 10 Wall. 15, compensation was claimed for· salvage services rendered in saving certain cotton, the property of the United States, while on board the. schooner Davis, upon which the cotton had been sent from Savannah, by an agent of the govel'llment there, and consigned to himself or his ussigns in New York. Two; questions were determined by the conrt: First, that personal property . of the United States might become subject to alien for salvage serv., ices; second, that no such claim could be enforced by suit in tfem, when it would be necessary to invade the actual possession of:the United States authorities, or to take such property out of the possession of the government by any writ or process of the court. it was held, however, that the eotton was not in that eaSEl in such a sense in. the possession of the United States as to exempt it from proceedings' in rem, having been d(-llivered to the mallter of the vesselrfor transportation to'New York, and.beingin his custody at the timethe·1ibel was filed. The court say: .. The possession of thE\ master' of the vessel was not the possession of the United States. He wasinno sense an otlic6r of the government. '" ,*.",!:' His obligation was to'deliver possession in New York to the agent of ernment. This he had. not done the processwl¥! served on the, * '" '" 'fhe United States, without any violation of law by tile ml1-rshal, was reduced to the. necessity of, becoming claimant and actor in the cOlJ,n; to assert their claim to. the cotton!" , '. ....
On this ground the libel was, upheld and salvage compeus8Itiou {Olnforced. In the case of The Fidelity, WAITE,c. J., observes, in regard to' The Davis, that "the cotton does not appear to have been inlitnYi manner devoted to the public use, or connected with the of the government:' By international comity, and that tacit agreement Whlcbcpnsti-! tutes the law of nations, every government accords to every other: friendly.power.the same 'respect to its dignity and sovereigntyt!and the same consequent immunity from suit; both as respects the! son of the sovereign as well as the national property devoted to,the; public service, which it enjoys itself ·within its own dominious. ",:A.a, a government cannot be impleaded in its own courts .without its .con· ·. sent, so no personal suit can be maintained against a foreign nor, as incidental to such 8uit, can any attachment be le:vjed, in the c().urts of common law, or any garnishee process be
4:96
FEDERAL REPORTER.
I'
against the property of a foreign government. De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q. B. 16iJ; Twycro88 v.'Dreyju8, 5 Ch. Div. 605; Leavitt v. Dabney, 7 Robt. 354. If, at the time the salvage service in this case were rendered, theTampico and the Progresso had passed into the full and complete possession of the Mexican government, so as already to belong to the public service of that country, then these vessels must be held exempt from under process of this court if the objection has been duly t8iken and presented to the court. On the part of the libelant it is urged that any claim to exemptlOJ). which: the government of Mexico might have, is not presented in a manner which entitles it to the consideration of the court; that no officer of the United States has appeared to protest against these proceedings in defense of the sovereignty. ofa friendly power, as in case of The Exchange and The Parlement Belge; and that neither the Mexican minister, nor the Mexican consul, no.- any other accredited or pl'Oved agent of the Mexican government, has appeared to assert any such immunity. UPOJ;l the seizure of the vessels by the under process, a claim was interposed in the ordinary manner by Henry C. de Rivera, "intervening as agent for the interest of the republic of Mexico." In this claim he averred that "he was in possession of the said steamer at the time of the attachment thereof, and that the republic of Mexico is the true and bonafide sole owner of the said steamer, and that no other person is the owner thereof, and that said Henry C. de Rivera is the true and lawful bailee thereof as wherefore, he prays to defend accordingly." The usual bonds were filed to release the vessels from custody, and they were thereupon discharged. Answers were subsequently put in by Henry C. de Rivera "as agent of the republic of Mexico, intervening for the iuterest of bis principal," and were signed by him as agent for that republic, in which there are pleas to the merits, as well as to the jurisdiction of the court, in the language first above quoted. Although objection to the jurisdiction alone might doubtless have been raised upon the information of the attorney general of the United States, or the direct intervention of the accredited political representative of the Mexican Government, I see no reason to disregard the mode of intervention adopted in this case, viz., by some other agent of the government, provided he was duly authorized thereto. The execution of the bonds to obtain the discharge of the vessels was no waiver. In this respect, as well as in proceeding by plea to the juris-
LOKG V. THE TAMPICO.
497
diction, the case is like that of The Fidelity, 9 Ben. 333; 16 Blatchf. 569.
But in the case of a private person like Mr. de Rivera, intervening in behalf of a foreign government, proper proof of his authority, as a fact material to the defense, ought to appear. It could not be permitted that vessels should be exempted from ordinary judicial process, and the libel dismissed upon the mere intervention of a private citizen, simply describing himself as the agent of a foreign country, without any proper proof of that fact, or of his authority to intervene. In a meritorious case, a foreign government may choose to waive its privilege, or may consent that the court proceed, as in the case of The Prins Frederik, 2 Dod. 481, 484. No direct evidence'was given of any authority in Mr. de Rivera to represent the Mexican government. Mr. Navarro, however, the oonsul general of Mexico at this port, was palled as a witness on behalf of the claimants, but without throwing any light on this point. Without consjd'ering this point further, however, I proceed to the important inquiries whether, at the time the services were rendered, these vessels were in the possession of the Mexican government, or belonged to or formed a part of the public service of that country. The vessels in question were built in this city, by the New York Safety Steam-power Company, under a contract, dated December 17, 1879, between that company of the first part, and "Antonio Obregon, acting as agent in commission for the snpreme government of Mexico, the terms of payment being guarantied by Messrs. J. de Rivera & Co., of New York city, merchants, as parties of the second part." The party of the first part agreed to build the two vessels within 12 weeks, and to deliver them under steam at this port, after a trial trip of suffi· cient duration and extent to thoroughly test and prove the machinery and the vessels, and demonstrate their efficiency. The parties of the second part agreed to pay $16,000; $2,000 after the boats were begun, $6,000 after they had been launched, and the balance of $8,000 when delivered under steam. The contract is signed by Obregon individually, and by J. de Rivera & Co. Mr. Kino, one of the firm of Rivera & Co., testified that they became parties to this oentract as guarantors, in consideration of a commission of 2! per cent., which was to be paid to them by Obregon, and which he subsequently paid them. The testimony shows that the vessels were delivered to Obregon by the builders, and accepted by him on the seventh of August, 1880, the day previous to the fire, after trial trips which v.16,no.4-32 .
had proved satisfactory; and all the money was paid. Mr. Navurro testified: "1 never received directions from my government in the form of direct communication; but 1 received orders, 1 think, from the minister of finance, directing me to give money for the construction of these vElss(3ls; and 1 think the whole of the money waa given by me;" that he paid the money by checks, which were delivered to Obregon, but which by his direction were drawn to the order of Rivera & Co.; and that he, the consul, was not connected with the matter, {lx-cept in the way above stated. On the sixteenth of July, 1880, Obregon, "as agent of the Mexican government, entered into a written agreement with Capt. J. W. Hudson, whereby Obregon a,greed to deliver as soon as ready, and the captain agreed to take command of the Mexican steam-cutter Progresso; and take her with all possible dispatch to the port of Vera Cruz, and there deliver her to the colledor of the port; and Obregon agreed to pay Hudson for his services $300-half when the steamer sailed, and the balance "on her proper and correct delivery at Vera Cruz,to be paid by the collector at the port of Vera By another contract of the sarne date, a similar agreement was made between. Obregon and Capt. James Durfee in regard to the Tampico. On July 31Bt,M.r. Navarro, as consul general of Mexico, issued a provisional register for each vessel, .which, after reciting that the steamer had been built. in New York "for account and by ord.er of the supreme Mexican government, to serve as coast guard in the waters of the gulf of Mexico," declared that the steamer was authorized to carry the Mexican flag; that a passport was given to her captain but to be of no effect after the vessel from NGW ,York to Vera arrived at the port, fl,nd requesting all civil and military should officera to regard the steamer as Mexican. Capt. Hudson testifies that his contract Wltu Obregon, although of July, was not in fact executed until bearing date the about the sixth or seventh of August, and that he then went aboard of the Progresso and tool>. command of her at the time of the trial trips; that he was aboard during part of the 8th, but was abfrom it at the time the fire broke out in the evening., . . The seaand shipped under Amermen weI:e procured here by Capt. ican shipping articles in the .usual form on the seventh of August for .avoyl1ge from New York to the gulf of Mexico, and all except the master and first engineer were to have their passage back to New Y0rk paid. Some of them were alward ll.t the time of the tire. The II
LONG ,.V·. THE TA14PICO.
499
first engmeer was hired by Mr. Rivera and was aboard at the time of 'the fire. The present libels were filea on Augus,t 9th, and both vessels; being released on bond, sailed on the tenth of August from New York for Vera Cruz in company, pursuant to the agreement. The Progresso, having met with an accident 'in the gulf of Mexico, arrived at Vera Cruz on August 31st,somewhat .damaged, a few days after the arrival of the Tampico. Both vessels were .there tendered to the collector of the port, pursuant to the agreement with Obregon. The was accepted; but the collector and the other Mexican authorities there ,refused to receive the Progresso on aC':louut of the inhad been insured in New York juries she had ilustained.The by Mr. Rivera for the benefit of whom it might concern, and Mr. Rivera, in the settlement of the loss, acted in behalf of the insurance company, and, as he testified, not as the agent of the Mexican go\'ernment. Upon these facts it seems clear that the vessels at the time of the salvage services, on August 8th, were neither employed in, nor as yet formed any part of, the public service of the Mexican government. They were designed for that service, but were not yet employed in it; they had been, put.in charge of Capt. Hudson and Capt. Durfee, to be navigated to Vera Cruz for delivery to the public authorities there. Neither. while lying in New York awaiting the voyage thither, nor until acceptaD'.le by the Mexican authorities at Vera Cruz or elsewhere, could such public service commence. Their situation before that was merely preparatory to being accepted for the public service. Nor am I satisfied, upon the evidence in this case, that the possession of Mr. Obregon,from the time when the vessels were delivered to him by his contractors after the trial trip on -the six.th or seventh of August, can be deemed to be the possession of the Mexican government, or that he was any such officer of that government as rendered his possession the 'possession of that government. His relations to the Mexican government ar,e not at all made known. The refusal of the Mexican a.uthorities, however, to accept the Progre8so on arrival at Ver,a,Cruz, onaecount of damages on her way out, is a st1'Ong indicl\tion .thatthere were some stipulations or conditions in regard to the acceptltnoeof the vessels in the arrange-ment between the government and Obregon, whatever arrangement that was. Mr. Navarro ,testiu<:ls:
500
FEDERAL' REPORTER.
"Questwn. Do you know about what time these cutters were accepted by the Mexican government? Answer· .As 800n as they arrived; except, of course, the one that bad the accident. ,Q. Do you know when the one that had the accident was accepted? A. It could not be accepted unless it was in good condition."
Mr. Obregon was not examined as a witness, though here a part of the time during the pendency of these actions. No contract or agreement between him and the Mexican government has been offered in evidence; nor is there any testimony in the case showing his appointment as an officer of any sort, or even his employment in behalf of the Mexican government, or any authority to represent them in any way; and, consequently, none of the conditions or stipulations appear which affected the acceptance of these vessels, whatever they were. The only evidence on the subject is indirect and inferential, and consists me-rely of recitals describing him as agent, in the documents above referred to. In claiming exemption from the ordinary process of the court, the burden of proof is clearly upon the :claimant to prove, by competent evidence, all the facts necessary to sustain this defense. If Mr. Ob. regon was in fact an officer or authorized representative of the Mexican government, or if the terms of any contract between him and that government were such as made the vessels the property of the Mexican government before delivery and acceptance at Vera Cruz, I cannot doubt that these facts would have been made to appear. In the absence of proof of either of those facts, every intendment is to the contrary. The mere recital in Obregon's contract with the steam. power company, the builders of the vessel, that he was the agent of the Mexican government, is not sufficient proof that when the vessels were delivered to Obregon on the seventh of August his possession is to be deemed the pOBsessionof the sovereignty of the republic. If thtl vessels had been built under the direct authority or contract of the Mexican government, and not through Mr. Obregon as a separate agtmcy, from whom the Mexican government was to reCi:live 'and accept them under specific conditions, it is scarcely credible that a commission.:of percent. would have been paid to Rivera & Co. to guaranty payment to the builders here, when Mr. Navarro, the COlisuI, paido\"er the whole money, or that any question about acceptance would have arisen at VeraCruz. The evidence, such as it is, warrants the inference that Obregon had,ul1de'l'taken, upon Bome coritract with the Mexican government; to build thest: vessels and deliver
LONG V. THETA,1dPICO.
501
them to the public authorities at Vera Cruz; that he was without sufficient money or credit here, and therefore obtained Rivera & Co., merchants of this city, to join in his contract here as guarantors, for which he paid them a commission; and his description of himself as agent of the Mexican government was probably designed only to help give him credit and standing. I think, therefore, the libel should be sustained on the ground that the at the time of the salvage service neither formed part of the public service of Mexico, nor were as yet the property or in the possession of that government. But if, on fuller evidence of the facts, it should appear that Mr. Obregon was an officer of the Mexican government, and that the vessels came the property of the government and in its legal possession upon their delivery to Mr. Obregon on August 6th or 7th, still the decision in the case of The Davis, which is binding on this court, would be applicable. For the contracts made with Capt. Hudson and Capt. Durfee show that the possession of the vessels was delivered by Obregon to those captains respectively, as bailees, by whom they were to be delivered to the Mexican republic at Vera Cruz. In this respect, therefore, the case would seem to be identical with that of The Davis, 10 Wall. 15, where the cotton, though the undpubted property of the government, was delivered· to bailees for the .purpose of transportation and delivery to the government agents in New York. The salvage service having been rendered after' \delivery to the bailee and while in his possession, the supreme court held that the 'property was liable to contribute, and that the action in rem would lie. In the U. S. v. Wilder, 3 Sumn. 308, STORY, J., held that government property.in possession of the master and owners of a ship on which it had b3en laden for transportation, could hold hIor payment of its share of general average contribution. In this case, as in that of The Davis, the salvage service was ten· dered after the delivery of the property to Capts. Hudson and Durfee for transportation and delivery to the government officers' at Vera Cruz; the attachment of the vessels in these snits wasmlldewhile the vesselswe;rein their charge; they were not officers oftbe Mexi· . can government; and the atTest of the vessels in these actions was made without invading the possession of that government. The libels must, therefore, be sustained. Upon the facts in regard to the salvage services which are above stated I thirik 7 per cent. upon the valuation, being the sum of $630,
502
will be a suitable award in. each case, with costs; one-half to be paid to the owners of the Joe, and out of the residue $150 to be paid to the captain in each case, and the rest to be divided equally ampng the crew. Since the above was written, the attention of the court has been called to the exhaustive opinions delivered in the supreme court in the recent case of U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196; [So C. 1 S+lp. Ct. Rep. 240;] but it is not perceived that there is anything in the opinion, either of the majority of the court or of the judges dissenting, at variance with the result of the foregoing decision.
Em-RESA MARITIMA A VAPOR
'I).
NORTH
& SOUTH AMERIOAN STEAM
NAVIGATION CO.
(District Court, 8. D. New York. May 10,1883.) 1. SECURITY. FOR CLAIM-RULE
53 IN ADMIRALTY. Under rule 53 the respondents in a croBB-libel should be required to !rIve security Where the vessel in the original libel is in custody, as well all where she has been released .on bond or stipulation.
2.
SAME>-STAY OF PROCEEDINGs-DISCHARGE OF VESSEL.
Where, under rule 53, the respondent is ordered to goive security, if Ile is able to do so, he will not be allowed at his own mere option to submit to a stay of proceeding merely, and at the same time hold the libelant's vessel in custody indefinitely under the original libel. If the refusal to give security is willful, the court, a reasonable time, may discharge the vessel upon the claimants' own stipulation, if it be clearly shown that claimants are unable to give security to release her. but not other wise; or it may order her to be sold.
In Admiralty. Motion for security. Goodrich, Deady « Platt, for libelants. Butler, Stillman « Hubbard, for respondents. BROWN, J. On the twentieth of July, 1882, the respondents, a New Jersey corporation, chartered from the libelants, a Spanish cor· poration, the Spanish steamer Bellver, for service between New York and the West Indies, at the rate of £1,000 per month, with the right of renewal for a subsequent term. The charterers took possession on the seventh of August, and continued her employment, under the until February, 1883, when they renewed the engage·