Court Opinion

ID: 6637486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:42:19.494719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:06.226367
License: Public Domain

Dyer, J.,
held that the seamen were not discharged from the obligation of their contract of service by the happening of disaster to the vessel; that it was their duty, so long as their personal safety permitted, to remain by the wreck and to save as much as possible; and that upon compliance with this. obligation the fragments of the vessel constituted a fund pledged for payment of their wages; that upon abandonment by them of the wreck the contract between them and the owner of the vessel would be dissolved, and that they would then lose their privilege against the vessel and their claim for wages; that as libellants remained by the wreck and did not abandon it until the outfit was removed, their right to wages and their lien continuéd in force; that under the circumstances of the case the wages which were earned while they remained on board, and until the vessel was finally abandoned, did not constitute antecedent wages in a sense which would postpone them to the claim of the salvors; and that the proceeds of the outfit must be first applied to the payment of their demands, although it would have been otherwise, had they abandoned the wreck before the salvage service was begun.