The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-16

United States District COURT.
Before Hon. Judge Ingersu.
DECISIONS N ADMIRALTY.
SassNsl p. Rodtnso~ ssaias ~ SHIP AsSsrs- |
The hbeIlant in this sues 70 recover c@pensa-
tion for services agent In procuring freight and
passengers for he ship for voyage 20 Australia, IN
the fan Of 1869. The chip was owned by George A. |
Trenholm and othem q Charleston, 8. c., and R
The ship being in this port in 1884, the Kbsllant APP
piled TO the agents TO sell the sp TO Mrs Rrler the
wife Of John c. Erler, Of this city. An agreement |
by r. Caldwell 3 Co.. 70 which the lbeliant WINS the
witness, and whose contents he was acquainted |
with. By that agreement Caldwell & Co. agreed to
sell the ship to Mrs. Erler, and Mrs. Erler,
her for 5000, payable in sixty days from date,
or before the ship should sail. Caldwell &
Co, were to hold the ship until the money was |
paid, and whatever repairs were put on her were |
be responsible therefor. The purchase money was
never paid, and the ship was lost on her voyage to
Australia. After the execution Of the coafract, |
John G. Erler proceeded 70 at her ont for the voy.
her, procured freight for the voyage. and employee
the bellant to act - her agent, and the bella al
performed services - such agent and broker. The
respondents claim that the Rbellant has no claim
against them at all under these facts and lsr 40
against them on the ship. They claim also thst he
has no maritime lien at all for such serv' "a HEN
ing him to . ships husband, whose flutg It is to
they aso Hken his claim to that Of ssxe 40 as en-
slowing the freight after it has be IN procured for
which, as has been decided in se' rsl cases. no lien
exists against the shiI can <ueive no difference
N principe between sns case q the sscyedore and
have the goods put on boar that the ship NAV earn
freight. The former act. AslH puts them on board,
and receives and slows them. 1t would seem on
prnciple that see afts consequent upon the bar
narfkS <ho,k
bargain and the 1ervioes by which it is brought
about, ought not 70 be considered maritime services
securing for the;n maritime lien. But the case Of
Warren againA tho ship 81. Mary, decided in this
court and a1rmed on appeal by the United States
Circuit Co,Gt, has decided that the services Of
ships agent or broker, In procuring passengers and
freight, on contract made with the owner, will
secure to the agent maritime hen if he looks to
the ship as security at the time Of performing the
services; and such therefore, the law of this court
It does not however, follow that the party render
owner would have lien. IF the party in possession
Of the ship and having control of her for the voyage
is prohibited by the owner from making such Lien,
and the party performing the services knew Of such
! prohibition at the time of his agreement to per-
form them, be cannot have lien as against the
| owner. The contract may be good maritime con-
tract against the party contracting but would not
give lien on the ship. So, If the party who per-
formed the services was notified that he must look
to the personal responsibility of the with whom
he has agreed for their performance and not to the
ship, he cannot have lien upon the ship. He does
not look to the ship for security when he performs
the services, and unless he does So lien attaches
| He cannot by contract have lien against the ex-
press prohibition Of the party to be affected by the
| lien. The hbelant contracted with John G. Erer
to perform these services after the execution of the
| agreement Of September Sd, and Robert Caldwell,
the agent Of the claimants deposes that about that
time he told the hbellant that whatever was done
Tor the ship by any one must be on Erler's
personal responsibility, and not on the credit
| Of the ship or her owners. Having received
such notice, he can have no lien for his
services. His right to such lien has been waived.
/ The ibellant claims that Caldwell is not compe-
tent witness, because the stipulation for value is
signed by Caldwell Co., agents for Trenholm &
Co." But the bond was not signed by Robert Cald.
therefore Be binding on Tim, Is not o w i the the
authority Of one partner to bind another by execu-
ting such stipulation, unless it is ratified ap-
proved by the other partner. Caldwell, not being
shown to have done 3d. Is not bound BY the stpula-
tion and therefore not Interested in the event of
the suit. If Erler, his wife, after the execution
of the contract Of September 3d. to be consider
vessel, and against such no lien is given by admi.
| rally law, even for materials and supplies. Such
services as those rendered by the lbeant could not
surely be entitled to higher consideration. Libel
Russell Sturges ps. the brig Na,aiiuc, her Tickle,
&c, and Cargo.-Ths suit is brought by the owner
| Of the steamtug Achilles, to recover salvage for
bringing the brig up to the city from the lower bay
on the 18th Of January, 1862. The British brig Nau
titus, on a voyage from st. AIMS Bay, Jamaica to
this port came inside of Sandy Hook ON the morning
OF the 18th Of January, having on board cargo of
pimento logwood, old me tai and rum, alleged by
the libelant to be worth about $50 000 and admitted
by the respondents to be worth the Of $l A.
She had pilot on board, and came to anchor inside
i OF the Hook. The ice commenced to collect
around her, and signals were made for steam
! boat to tow her up. Two steamboats, passed
without regarding her. and on the 18th sig
/ n he hv ha
ibeant to be worth the sum of $45, 0GO, and to be
| wholly uninsured, was coming up to tie city, and
deserted the brig some two or three miles from the
channel, towards the jersey shore. The Achilles
went to her and brought her up to the city arriving
there about six o'clock in the evening. In regard
| to the danger Of the brig, and the difficulty and
danger which the Achilles met in towing her mp,
the stories OF the hbellant and respondents differed
| exceedingly-the respondents claiming that the
brig was in danger, and that the ice was Of small
thickness and afforded little or no hndrance to toe
| Achilles. The hbellant alleged that the brig was
drifting towards the Jersey shore, and in great
danger of being cut through by the ce and that the
had been out of provisions upwards of forty
hours, and we've making preparations to leave the
les the ice appeared to be very dangerous being in
large cakes and piled up sometimes so as to stop
the Roadway Of the Achilles entirely, and to expose
| her TO great danger. The hbeEant claimed to re-
cover fourth of the value of the ship and cargo
| az a proper salvage compensation. Held by the
court, that this was salvage service Of very great
merit; that on the evidence, it appeared that the
| brig, if she had not been saved that day. would
have been either cut through by the ice or driven
| on shore and lost; that other steamtug in the
port but the Achilles could have rescued her; and
that steamboats, are entitled to high compensation
for services performed by them in saving vessels in
distress. 1t therefore decreed, that the libel
liant recover the of 5000, rs against the ship,
and the sum of 81 1913, against the cargo with
| costs.
THEDANIsH SogND ToLLs-Among the State pa
pers to the light, is the reply of Secretary
Marcy to the resolution OF inquiry in PRODUCED by Mr.
Walker, Of New York, into the House some time
ago, which yesterday duly transmitted to the
Speaker Treating it does of q subject of great
Importance to those engaged in commerce with
Northern Europe, it is destined TO command great