Case Name: FOUNTAIN v. SAWYER et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1910-01-18
Citations: 176 F. 92
Docket Number: No. 1,912
Parties: FOUNTAIN v. SAWYER et al.
Judges: Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHEEBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 176
Pages: 92–92

Head Matter:
FOUNTAIN v. SAWYER et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 18, 1910.)
No. 1,912.
Salvage (§ 51 ) — Amount of Compensation — Review on Appeal.
The proper amount to allow for a salvage service is a matter of opinion, based upon the evidence as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the services, and the rule on appeal is that the amount allowed by the lower court should not be reduced, unless some important error has been committed, such as a violation of just principles, or clear and palpable mistake, or gross overallowance.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Salvage, Cent. Dig. § 133; Dec. Dig. § 51.
Awards in federal courts, see note to The Damington, 30 C. C. A. 280.]
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida.
Suit in admiralty by Thomas Sawyer and others for salvage services. Decree for libelants, and James Fountain, claimant, appeals.
Affirmed.
G. Bowne Patterson, for appellant.
Jefferson B. Browne, for appellees.
Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHEEBY, Circuit Judges.
For other cases see same topic & § numbbk in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The services rendered by the libelants in the court below were unquestionably salvage services, and the only question before this court is as to the amount of salvage compensation.
The proper amount to allow is a matter of opinion, based upon the evidence as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the services, and the rule on appeal is that the amount allowed by the lower court should not be reduced, unless some important error has been committed, such as the violation of just principles, or clear and palpable mistake, or gross overallowance. See The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, 4 L. Ed. 522; The Camanche, 8 Wall. 448, 19 L. Ed. 397; The Connemara, 108 U. S. 359, 2 Sup. Ct. 754, 27 L. Ed. 751. In this case we find no important error, no violation of just principles, nor clear mistake, nor gross overallowance.
The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.