The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-23


lowing propositions declared beloW are al
nrmed:- II. The attempt to tow the burning
was an act Of negligence. 2 that the drifting OF
the Jerry boat as not an lneVltaDle ACCIDENT out
was the result Of negligence OF toe psrt OF snose
not being required by law 10 keep watch under
the circumstances, was without Iault ana Is en-
TITLED 10 damages.
No. 22o. New YORK Haroor Protection Company
appellants, VS.. the Schooner Clara, her tackle.
&c.-Appeal from the Circuit Court for the South
ern District of New YOrk.-Mr. Justice Clifford
delivered the opinion Of the Court
Remuneration 10 claimed by the libenants 10
this case, as the owners Of the steamtug adjudged
guilty OF negligence in tho case Just decided, for
salvage service rendered by the same steamtug
and the officers and crew In charge OF her in sub
DUNG the fire on board the schooner and in saw
ing the vessel from destruction. Enough appears
In the opinion delivered IN that 30 show that
the schooner caught fire from the lerI yboat which
was taken in tow by the steamtug, and that the
collision between the two vessels was caused
by the want OF proper precaution. care and skill
on the part OF those intrusted with the control
and management OF the steamtug. Suf1cient
account OF what occurred prior TO the collision
and TO the time the schooner caught IRE from the
burning OF the erry boat Is given In the other case,
and need not be repeated. Three attempts, II VIII
be remembered, were made without success 10
tow the burning lerryboat up the river by means
oil a hempen hawser before the schooner caught
force OF the wind and mood tide 1oated against
the schooner and set ner upper works on fire.
Both tne ferryboat ana the schooner being on fire,
those in charge OF the steamtug made another
attempt to accomplish what they originally In
tended, ana the pieadings and evidence showed
that they fastened the hawser 10 the lerryboat and
succeeded In dragging her clear OF the schooner;
but 1t also appears that she Immediately sunk
and became q total loss All necessity for SER
vice IN that behalf being ended, the allegation Is
that those IN charge OF the steamtug Immediately
turned their attention TO the schooner, which was
nur01nn furamA6L
bowsprit ana Including all her head sails, and
the lloellants claim that the officers and crew Of
the steamtug made fast the schooner by line,
and that they passed hose on board the burning
vessel and brought TWO or more powerful streams
by their exertlons, which continued for TWO or
three hours, succeeded In subduing, the flames and
in preserving the schooner from entire destruc-
ton. Service was made and the owners OF the
schooner appeared as respondents and filed an
answer. They admit that tue steamtug ult-
matey succeeded m dragging the lerryboa Gear
OF the schooner and mat she returned to
the schooner after the ferryboat sunk.
and that she rendered service In subdu-
ing the names and saving the schooner
rom complete destruction but they
deny, in the most positive iornl that the libel
lanLs entitled TO salvage on account Of the
services rendered, for tho following reasons:-
H. Because the schooner would not have caught
ire II those IN charge OF the steamtug nad eX-
ercsed due and proper care in their attempts TO
tow the burning ferryboat from her sup up the
river. C2) Because the schooner WAS run into and
set on ire BY the caresssness, negligence and in
attention OF those who rendered the alleged sal
wage service ana not from any 1ault or neglect OF
duty on The part OF the schooner. Further dis
cusson upon the matters of fact involved
IN those propositions are unnecessary, as they
have all been conciusyely Determined In
favor of the present respondents IN the proceed
ing case which leaves nothing for decision In the
case before the Court except the question
whether the claim FOR salvage compensation can
be sustained in view OF the 1acts set forth IN the
propositions submitted by the respondents. Sal
wage Is we'll defined as compensa lion allowed 10
persons by whose assistance snip or vessel, or
tne cargo of the sbme or the lives or the persons
belonging 10 the ship or vessel, are saved from
aaRger or loss in case OF sDipwreck derellct cap
ture or other marine misadventures. M a r.
on ship 4771 Other jurists define II as the SER
vice which volunteer adventures spontaneously
render to the owners in the recovery OF property
from loss or damage az sea under the re-
sponsibility OF making restitution and with
a lien Tor their reward. (Macalachl2n
on Snip. 523; the Neptune, l Hag. Adm. Z36;
the Thetis 3 Hag Adm 431.) Persons who ren-
der such service called salvors aud salvor is
defined to be a person who, without ans parucu-
lar relation TO snip in distress proers useful
service and gives 1t as volunteer adventurer
without any pre-exlsting contract that connected
preservation OF the vessel. Enough appears In
those definitions TO snow that the elements neces-
sary to constitute valid salvage claim are as ie-
lows FIRST, O marine peril to the property TO De
rescued second, voluntary service not owed TO
the property as u matter oil duty; tbird success
in saving-the property or some portion OF IL from
that impending peril.
After revle wing the case In point, the Court say
that as the scnooner's peril was occasioned by
those who rendered the salvage service, they
cannot recover.
mad