The New York herald., 1869-05-19
8ROOKL YN CITY.
TIE COURTS.
rKIrfu STATES DISTRICT couaT-lS ADMIRALTY.

Important Decision-The Expense Of Raising
ship .sunken bv a Collision may be
Recovered us a Part of the Damages in
Before Judge Benedict.
The Steamship Nebraska ps. Benjamin McCart-
neD.-This case comes before the court upon excep-
tons TO the Commissioners report Of the amount OF
damages sustained by the bellants by reason OF the
sinking OF the canal boat Sarah Ball in collision.
The boat, when sunk, was lying at the end OF
pier in this harbor, and had on board
cargo OF coal Where the vessel sunk the
water about thirty feet Deep and 1t not pos
sple ascertain the extent OF her injuries. as she
lay upon the bottom, but 1t maniestly possible
10 raise her. contract was accordingly made Win
wreckng company TO raise her Tor SoOV ana she
was thereupon raised and placed upon the ways
and examined, and then found to be SO much IN
value when repaired, whereupon she was sold at
auction for 500. The commissioner allowed
IN aa4a 9n the 10 e osUn as e peta Sss
less the proceeds OF her sale, and ip
addition the expense Of raising her and Placing her
lection taken relates TO the allowance OF the ex.
penses of raising the vessel and placing her upon
the ways. And It is insisted upon the part OF the
caimant that the raising OF the vessel was at the
risk OF the party incurring the expense ana not
chargeabe against the wrongdoer in addition TO the
value Of the vessel, 1t having turned out that the
vessel was not worth raising. In support Of this
position the case of the Metropolis, decided by
so by the supreme Court is relied an
thorlty. The law laid down In the case OF the
Metropolis ! do not conceive TO be applicable
in the present In the case OF the
Metropolis, the vessel was sunk in the
middle II the Sound, some sixteen miles wide, and
there was reasonable ground 10 suppose that
efforts to raise her would be attended with success
Here the vessel sunk at pier where 1t was
known that she could be raised at an expense Of
S5o0 and where, until she was raised, il was impos
stbe 10 tell whether II would be eXpedent to repair
her or not. Under such circumstances it seems to
me II was incumbent upon prudent owner to have
the vessel raised. The raising was necessary pro-
ceeding TO enable the hbellant TO determine his
course as 10 her repairs ana TO compute his loss,
and he is entitled to be repaid the reasonable eX-
pense thereby incurred. Such was the ruling IN the
case OF the engineer. Il Lusk, 1881 Furthermore this
vessel was sunk at pier, where she was an obstruc
tlon TO the harbor OF New FORK. She could not law
fully be permitted 10 remain where she was and II
not raised by the libellan mght be removed by the
Commissioner of Pilots al the expense OF the libel
liant. laws OF New York. 1860, chan. 522 Sec 1)
The libellant was bound to raise her and the eX
pense TO which he put became part OF the
damage caused by the collision The allowance of
the expense OF raising seems to me, therefore, TO be
correct A 10 the expense OF the ways am also
or the opinion that 1t was necessary expenditure
10 enable the beant to examine his vessel ia order
TO determine hs course as 10 repairs. and Is there
fore, properly allowed. The other exceptions were
not Insisted upon. The report is therefore con.
hrmed.