New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-11-16

holding that the objection that the Coast Wreckng Com
pany as such cannot claim salvage cannot De nam
that the long established principle that the owners OF
ships engaged In such service although HOT
poratlon IN the same position Corporations ereore,
Contract and that there can be- no claim for salvage for
that reason s also overrued and many cases are eed
In which the claim for salvage was allowed when
tract existed 10 appearing that the work had been at
tended TO greater risk and danger than anticipated ~ inc
time Of the contract Decree affirmed.
Is A BOILER EXPLOSION PERILs OF TIE sEAf
Barrett agt The Propeller Aohdpk.-An appeal from
the Circuit Court for the Northern District of illinois,
The steamer Mohawk engaged TO transport wheat
from Chicago Buffalo, and the day after starting on
the voyage she grounded IN the channel on the ST. Car
sci also there grounded she burst her boiler and sinking
oeeasoned nearly total loss OF the cargo Suits in
admiralty were subsequently brought by the parties for
whose the wheat was shipped ana the delehse
that the vessel was In good ana seawotlny eond
ton when she left port and continued 80 until she
grounded-that tho explosion OF the D0er was not
caused by neglect or careessness on the part OF h
vessel her officers, and must be considered peru OF
navigation On the other hand, 1t was insisted tat the
Is liable for the damage occasioned by it, The bill
dismissed the Conrt sustaining the theory OF the
and this Court arms that view by an opinion de'ied
by Mr. Justice Nelson.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CoSsIGSoRs.
Drokely and FentOn agt. Gregg aud Hughes-Error 10
the Circuit for the District of prn
cpal question this is the right OF the plaintiffs IN
error (he defendants below lien for their general
balance as commission merchants the proceeds two
consgnments to them at Baltimore, of pork hams, and
shoulders made at Chicago by firm having the equi-
table therein without the knowledge OF parties
holding the legal tte who were tho defendants IN error
The Of the latter given TO the first shipment
when informed OF It, and they received the proceeds on
drafts of the cOnsgnOrs 10 their order The last con-
Segment was without their knowledge, under cireum-
stances making dstrusfu and they at once n0tl
fed the cOnsgnees make no further advances TO the
consgnOrs and then claimed TO be virtually and legally
the owners OF both consignments They afterward OBJ
tanned from the consgnOrs order which was accepted
by the consi gnees, requiring the latter TO place
the proceeds of all the property to their
credit and thereafter they dealt with the two con-
signments owners, substituting themselves In place
OF the original consignors. The question was whether,
having this course defendaDts adopted
Of the consignments as agreed between the
eOnsgnees and the original consgnors. and then be,
came In the place OF the latter, liable for the general
balance. Under the instructions TO the jury by the
Couyt below, the verdict for the substituted parties
and they not made liable. This Court now re-
versed the Judgment entered 10 that verdict and re-
mands the cause Mr. Justice Davis delivering the opn-
ion The Court Of the opinion from the evidence be-
fore them substituted parties did SO adopt the
agreement Of the original cOnsgnors as TO become hape
for the general balance.