BY,WATER tI. A RAFT OF PILES.
917
BYWATER,
et al· .". A
OF
PILll:S.
(Distrlct COUrt, D. Washington.
June 17,1890.)
1. 2.
SALVAGE-SUBJECT-RAFT ADRIFT.
A raft of timber found drifting with the tide on deep water in a harbor, and out of the control of the owners, is a subject of salvage.
Persons finding a raft 'SO situated, who secure it for the owners, render a valuable service, for which a claim of salvage is enforceable in admiralty. {Syllabu8 1Yy the
SAME-WHO ARE SALVORS-AcTIONS.
In Admiralty. R. S. Greene and L. T.Turncr, for libelants. J.,C.llu,ines j for claimants. HANFORD, J. The libelants in, this cause claim compensation for salvage sellvices rendered ,in arresting, towing to Ii place of and securing a raft of piles found adrift and derelict in Seattle harbor. The claimants, who are owners of the piles, deny that the property iaa subject of salvage under maritime ,law; deny that it was in'peril at the time of belng taken in charge of by the libelants; and deriy that the facts make a case within the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty. The. material' facts of the, case are that the raft in question had' been moored by its owners, the claimants in this case, at a wharf owned by them situated in the southern part of Seattle bay. That on the morning of a pleasant day in June, in some manner, it got· loose and went adrift, and between 8 and·9 o'clock in the morning was discovered by one of the libelants about one mile north of ,the wharf to which it had been moored,and something over one mile from the eastern ,shore of the bay, drifting on an ebb-tide towards the harbor entrance. There waliat the time alight breeze from the south-west, and the water was smootb. The libelant Elliott was owner of a small steam.tug called the Violet, and the other libelants were at the time connected with this vessel as master, engineer, .and deck-ha,nd, constitutjng ber entire crew, and the tug was tben employed as a general jobbing boat, doing towing and like service on Seattle bay and the neighboring waters, and eaming on an average $25 to $30 per day; the usual rates for services such as tbis boat had Capacity to render, ,when employed by the bour, being $2.50 per hour. WhIm the libelants discovered tbe raft, tbe tug was in her berth at the wharf, witb steam up, and ready to accept any offer of employment that might be made to her, and they immediately went to tbe raft, and brougbt it in, and sElcured it to a wharf opposite to whicb. it bad drifted on the .eastem shore of the bay; in doing which, between two and three hours' time was' consumed. The raft was quite valuable, wortb at least &2,200, and WlilS at .the time of being so taken charge of by the libelants out of of its owners, and in apparent imminent danger oLbeing lost, .altqough the real danger was b,ut sUghh and in'l'escuing it the libelants .thenlse}vell, ,tul.dauffered no ,hardshipa, ;.more tban '
DDER:AIJ i REPOBTERj>
vol. 42. .
is incident to their usual and every-day employment. In towing the raft and mooring itthe]ihelantsllsed.1iuesprovided by themselves from the tug of the value of $13, which have not been returned to them. One of the clairrmbts discovered' the departure <If the raft 'Very soon after the libelants had found it, and he immediately started in, pursuit of it, anQ Il-ppeal'e(1!lJ),q. claimed it as soon as the llbelants'hadmoored it, and requested the libelants to tow it back to the place from 'whence it had drifted 1 they were unable to do. the tug not.bavillg power enough to move so heavy a raft against the current. In the evening of the same day a tug of greater power employed by the claimants towed the raft back to their wharf. n is indisputable that the libelants did render a service of some value to the claimants in arresting arid holdihgthistaft, and a service of such a nature that public policy commends it, and dictates that It suitable reward be granted for it, although the reward should not he such as to im,poseany. considerable' burdentipon the claimants. The service was voluntary :the part of the libelants, and, at the outset they undertook to. do anduudergo whateveii might be necessary in orderto save valuaforiwhatever Teward or .cqrnpensation a court of conscience ble might see: fit! ,to, :allow, be it much or little. The service so rendered comes fairly within thedefinition·of 'a:salvage service. Upon the argument it was dEmied that the case is one of salvage, and Siuthorities were cited by counsel on' both sides, and from Ahe language;0f the several opinions a confliotbetween them on this point. But the facts: in',the different cases were so different as to (l.fford abundant ground to ,distinguish bet",een them jand most of them are maintainable on trueprineiples,andi harmoniously with the decisions by Judge BETTS in A:.RaftojSpar8. 1 Abb. Adm. 485, and by Judge LoWELlO in Fifty ThOtltsand Feet. oj ,T.imbtrj 2 Low., 64, lind· by Judge PARDEE in .Muntz v. A: Raft oj ,Timber., ,15 Fed. Rep. 555,'D57 · Thesethl'ee cases are the nearest in point of any tbatbave been cited, and: were well considered, and decidetl in thEl1ightofaU preceding rulings bearing upon the question, andI. fee}. safe in following them. ; . The casedeciderl by Jl1clgeTANEy,(%me v.Four Orib8.ojLumber, repOltedin Taney's Decisions,on page: 533,) was one in which salvage was claimed for. arresting .lumber rafts floating down the Susquehanna river. The .luplber Had, been made up into cribs and rafts; designed expressly to beinthatforDi t1'8iDspotfed to ma'rket by being floated down th<-l riverj and it wasthe.constant practiceoflu'mber-men to use the river for floating similar rafts;,andJupge'l'ANEY',asJ:lthink,very properly held that' it wBs:theright'of .(J)wnel'S of such propertyit,o subject dt·.tcrsuch risks as might be mode: oftmns:poltationf and' that it would be ahardshiptJpon,themto: ,permit unauth:o,lized personsl to deprive the' owners of poss6ssi(iln.of ;valuable propertYll:md' suibjectthein to liability for. !olvagei.byinterferirig' with: such iafts ;'w'hen ·fotthtl:afl6at on the . Ioertaiuly thinktbat:jtJlJtice would'requireme td bold that an unauthorized' i'nterference with.logf:l& l\1niber while floating down any of the ri verso( this state; abcol'ding to· the' customary' mode· of' transport-
B?WAU:ER fl. A RAn OJ' PILES.
919
ing such property, would render the person interfering liable for damages as a uespasser, rather than entitled to a reward as a salvor. But in case of a large raft adrift in deep water, and not confined to any particular channel, nor' certain· to follow any fixedcoutse, and especially in the harbor of a busy commercial city, a different rule is necessary; any :l?J:lFS9n)yhofinds El,uch.a ;raft so situated, and secures it for,'theowner, tenders a'valuable service:tohim, and to all persons interested in keeping the'harbor clear of obstructions.' it unnecessary reviewar comment on the other cases pjted by counsel for the claimant. It is enough to Bay that they are not in point, and, if they were, they are not of such binding 'auiliority as to favoring' ,the opposij:e conclurequire me to disregard the btltter . sion. . As to the amount to be awarded, I consider the case similar to the on'" de,<;jded b-y·JudgeBErrI'S1a8 rElgards the merits of' the services. . In that amft.Qf llplf.rs., was of much: less ,value than the property· iQ this case, but it was,in grll$.ter peril. TQe performed in. to a place of about the: Sl!-me asin.thiscasEl, had to watQh and protElct the spars ior several days bu;t after. No such service w,llsnecessary;in thi" case. In that case Judge BETTS awarded 850. In thisr.ll8e, in cons,i.deratiQn of the ropesuaed and lost il) the service, and all the fa:ct.sj: I llward to the libelant.Frank Elliott, owner tug,'30, an4toeaeh oUhe other .5; a
'to
total of$45.
',1
t,
:;'
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 42;
SOUTHWESTERN TRANSP.
Co.V.
PITTSBURG COAL CO.
(DistTf.ot Court, E. D. Louisiana. June 8, 1890.) ADMIRALTyPRACTIOE:-CJloss-LIBEL.
In a suit for salvage by the crew and owners of a tug for sa:vlng a fleet of coal barges which had been: loosened fromtheil' moorings and scattered by the wind, a counter-claim for the wrongful mooring of t4e tug to the outer baJ.'ge of the fleet, whereby the accidellt occurred which exposed the barges to the danger from which the tug saved them 'is not the proper subject of a cross-libel. '
l
'