THE BIR WILLIAM ARMSTRONG.
145
other. If in the cases of vessels moored to the land, the fire department and police may assume control so far as to prevent disorder or inefficient work, this power does not rightfully extend to the exclusion of efficient help from tugs previously engaged. In this court, therefore, where a tug has proceeded with dispatch to the scene of the fire, upon a recognized signal for help from tugs, as in this case, and has rendered valuable assistance, her claim to salvage will not be allowed to suffer disparagement, through any arbitrary and improper interference by the fire department, which prevented an uninterrupted continuance of her aid .until completion of the salvage work. In the present case, the event· shows that the action of the fire department was not only arbitrary, but grossly ill judged and erroneous; and that both the lighter and her cargo have suffered from the unwana,ntable interference and threats which caused the A.:rrierica for a time to suspend playing with her hose. Her work did not in the least· interfere with the work of the fire llepartment. The event was unfortunate. The fire department could not put out the ftrewithotit finally sinking the lighter, whereby less than half the vessel and cargo was saved. The work was a continuous one from the time the America arrived. She is entitled to at least her proportion of the whole salvage work considered as one undertaking. See The Henry R. Tilton, 53 Fed. Rep. 139. She was more or less occupied on the work for about three hOUrs, though the actual. playing of her hose was, through the interference of the fire depa.rtment, much less than that. But she responded with alacrity to the lighter's signal, and her claim is meritorious. I award her $400. Of this amount, two thirds will go to the owners; and of the remaining. third, $25 is allowed to the mate or pilot, who was in charge, and the residue to the mate and other men on board of the America in proportion to their wages. Decree accordingly, with costs. THE SIR WILLIA)'! ARMSTRONG. MERRITT WRECKING ORGANIZATION STRONG. (District Court, E. D. Virginia.
v: THE
SIR WILLIAM ARM·
August 17, 1892.)
1.
SALVAGE-COMPENSA,;\,ION-ENFOMEMENT OF CONTRACT.
A steamship bound to Havre from New Orleans, with a large cargo of cotton, stranded .on the. shoals 20 miles north of the Virginia capes during a storm. Intelligence of her situation and request for assistance were sent by a passing steamer to Norfolk, the nearest port. In response, libelants, who were considered the best equipped wreckers on the Atlantic coast, sent out two barges, with a total capacity of 1,800 baleil, two large wrecking steamers, and three or four tugs chartered for the purpose, the whole being manned by a force of between 90 and 100 men. On arrival the stranded ship was found to have sunk 6 or 8 feet in the sand, with several feet of water in her compartments, in a helpless cOI)dition and a dangero)ls position. A salvage contract in writing was entered into with libelants by the captain, after consultation. with the ·chief mate and engineer, and with the approval of all three, which, in Ilubstance, provided that the salvors, if successful, shou,ld, 25 per cent. of the value of the dry cotton saved,40 per cent. of the valne of 1;he wet cotton, and 20 per cent. of the appraised value of the ship. The cost to the salvagllcompany of the enterprisEl, after it ;was cpmpleted, was over $20,000. Thl) ,wllrk of the salvors was enllrJly snccessful. The sllip and all the cotton, amounting to
v.53F.no.l-lO
DDEB:A.L, ,
vot 581 "
tbevessel, whUetheship'is Ulettreme peril, helpless, aDd in momentary dangerof ,destrtilltion,ls, nptvotd duress, where there is no inteI\1i on the part ,of salvor tgextortunjuat QOmpens&tion, &n4 the tenns and the amount in accordance With awards for like allmiralty oourts. 8.S.\I'il:lli. , ' . ' , ' , rTMdefense on the pal'!t of that the to be as only a matter,of rom, and that the oompensation of tM salvors was to bedetetmlned by the NBtionB1. Board of Underwriters; 'CBnnot'avail in'the face of the fact that a week after its date. in a letter to l;he wreoking company he comof the delay ill "cIU'ryoing out your contract, " and, in view of the further faots 'thilt dl1rlng tbe whole' pl'6grtls8 of the work of salving the ship aDd oargo, embl'8cllng iii period' of 1700", no objection was made or an,. intimation given that was a matter of form. 4.8A¥B-:;-4.PPo1lTIOlS'KENT
2,·aum....DuBBef·'aaving alihip' 'rna4e out'atsea by salvorwitb mtlosterand mates,01 """"'" , ' " . 4:,l1ontraot for
5.2'71, Mli:ls,' lin, 'tlqrt.,Thrll8 ,days, the thesteamsDip Ilotlfied of its terms by theoa.Ptain" alid nO obJOOti011W6& olferec1Hel.d, that the oontraot \VaS reasonable; fair, and just, and should be enforrced. " ' i ' " ' ,': ·
n 11\, Irl'Admil1'alty. Libe1bytbe Merritt Wrecking Organization against the steamship SirWillialll Armstrong to recover on:acontract for salvage. Decree'furiUbelants.. ,,; i
net tonnage 'was 1886. The cotton sBvedoOnstituted in weight 1,800 , toOui' wlBoh'WBs to be handled about 5,000 paroels pounds, eaoh plIoroel or bale to times. Hetd" that, iq '. the rates in tbe 'oontraot 110 (,1isorlmination 'W'as'iDade in favor of the ship.
SHIP AND CARGO. ,'
"
,
it
<
I
I :
, Sharp' &¥ughfls, ' '; ;Riohard! W forl'es,pQndentll. ·. About midday of January 19, 1892, the Armstrong, McKenzie,master, on a voyage to Havre, was driven in by heavy wind and sea, and in the shdal$ which lie off Cobb's island, 20 mHes north of the Virghii'a' cilipes; Cobb's island is one of asenes of largesandba1'8 which line the Virginia coast in that region, being 6 or 7 miles out ft:om the mainland. In very high seas nearly the entire island IS swept by the waves. Shoals are formed east of it, and extend 4 and more miles into the ocean. is very "lumpy" and of varying depths. Occasional inlets pervade:tltetn here and there, otie of which extends inward 'alp,ngthe southerq epd.of the island, and avery irregular one leaves this, just southeast of the island, and runs in an ill-defined and crooked form, with the ocean, channel northeasterly (lutto sea. These an irregular triangle, on the outer side of which the Sir William Armstrong str8pp,ed. She lay: eastward of the southern end of the island, about 3imiles out to seaward, 20 miles from the Virginia capes, 50 miles froXQ Norfolk. She stuck fast in 7 feeto! water. She had on a 'cargo of 5,559 bales of cotton, and drew 19 feet aft and 14 feet or more forward. lIer net was 1,386, and her gros1l2,179. Her length was 300 feet, her breadth of beam 3H feet, and her depth of hull 24 feet. She is, a eom partment steamer, built witliwater-tight bulkheads between four cargo holds and the engine rooms, and between the cargo bunkerS and mainqtlclt. There are four freight; and pne engine room oompal'tment, the latter in the center of the ship. Telegraph wires .8l'sall an,d.intelligence could not be c9n:veyed to Norfolk of hu HUGHES,
.
;,,'')'!,;1,,' ','
"i:,
THE SIR WILLIA.M: ,,-Rlt):STRQNG.
14i
situation until of. the 20th, when it was sent by a steamer bound in to Norf.olk from New York. The libelants promptly sent out their wrecking steamer Rescue to look after and give assistance to the Armstrong. The Rescue arrived out at about 3p. M. on the 21st. Between the 19th and this arrival the steilmer had discharged a large quantity of coal, pumped out her ballast tanks, run a hawser and anchor out to northeast, and before. the coming 'of the Rescue had worked her engines and set her sails, for the purpose of heaving on; this anchor. In this effort the steamer had floated and backed herself off; but something had then given way, and she had fallen hack and grounded again, the sea being very heavy . Later eflorts had failed to move her, and on the morning of the 20th she had hoisted signals of distress, and in the afternoqn had sent a message in for assistance, as before stated. The weather was freezing, and the sea breaking over the ship on the 20th; during which time she consum.ed all her rockets and distress signals without receiving any response. Finally she continued to signal by means of flare lights. During this day the crew, despairing ofsaving the ship, had petitioned the captain for leave to go ashore; but this purpose was relinquished in consequence of an abatement of wind and sea in the latter part of the day. Soundings around the ship showed a depth of7 feet at low water. She had sunk several feet in the sand, witnesses varying from 3 to 10 feet in opinion, and was listed 4 or 5 feet to starboard. During these occurrences she had lost her stern post and rudder, and some 16 feet of keel, and, as afterwards appeared, her bottom had been considerably injured. When the Rescue arrived, she was found to have 3. feet of water in her No. .3 compartment, and 2i feet in No.4, both these holds being aft. She was most probably sunk 6 to 8 feet in the sand. The ship was helpless, and in a very dangerous position. The testimony of experienced wreckers who were examined is that it is much more dangerous .for a vessel to be stranded 3 or 4 miles out among shoals than on a beach of the mainland. Lines cannot be run from them to a place of safety. Wrecking steamers cannot be got near them. Barges or surfboats have to be used. Risk of many casualties has to be run in stormy weather, and in case of accident the lives of all on board a ship are beyond the usual chances of rescue. The Armstrong was 10 miles from an inaccessible part of the mainland, 20 miles from the Virginia capes, 40 miles from Hampton roads, and 50 from Norfolk. The task of saving her was undertaken by the Merritts, who are the most completely equipped wreckers on the Atlantic coast. Their entire plant represents a capital of $600,000. The Merritts themselves, and most of their men, have an experience in wrecking, as a profession, of a quarter of a century. Capt. Coley, their chief manager, and Capt. Nelson, his assistant, are known to this court as me.:\! of the highest experience and skill in the wrecking business. These two men were deputed, in their respective ranks, as managers of the enterprise of saving the Armstrong .and her valuable cargo. The property put at the disposal of these two managers of this ellterprise 'Yas upwards of $200,000 in value. The libel s.tates that the number oimen employed under them was between 90 andl0Q. The
148 .
-nmERAt REPORTER,
vol. 53.
cost to the Merritts bf the enterprise afterit was completed was found to have exceeded $20,000. i'" , · Until recently , when cotton ships stranded and 'became subjects of salvage enterprises, it was the practice to lighter the cotton bales into surfboats, draw these by liues across the breakers to steamers lying in the offing, and send them into portj or, if the condition of the weather and sea permitted, schooners were brought alongside the stranded ships, and, when loaded with cotton, were taken in tow by outlying steamers and brought into port. The Merritts have devised, as a substitute for surfboats, very eli pacious barges of very light draught, propelled by their own steam engines and machinery, for the purpose of lightering stranded cotton steamers. Two of this class of barges were used in taking cotton· off the Armstrong, viz. ,the Seymour, with capacity for 700 bales, and They employed in the the Haggerty,with capacity for 1,100 same service their own two wrecking steamers, the Rescue and the Merritt; built for that specific business. These large steamers assisteci and remained in the the Armstrong while the service was going onjand three or four smaller tugboats, chartered by the Merritts for the occasion, were employed in towing the two barges, respectively,with their loads, from the Arnistrong to Norfolk, and in bringing them back again. . . ' . On the arrival of the Rescue near the Armstrong, on the afternoon of the 2lst, Capt. Coley weritahoard. 'rhey were jettisoning cotton from the ship at the time, and had thrown about 220 bales overboard. Capt. Coley at once advised a discontinuance of this work, and it ceased. After conferring with Capt. McKenzie, they agreed upon the terms on which Capt. Coley would undertake the saving of the ship and cargo, which 'were put in the forin of a written contract, which will hereafter be considered. In substance, t4e contract provided that the salvors, in the event of success, should have 25 per cent. of the value of the dry cotton saved, 40 per cent. of the value of the wet cotton, and 20 per cent. of the value of the ship. This contract was entered into by Capt. McKenzie after his chief mate and chief engineer had been called into consultlttion, and with the concurrence and approval of all three. 'When Capt. Coley first got to the Armstrong, he did not expect to Sll.ve her. The reason i was, as he says, that she had water in her; that she was on a shoal out some miles from land, where barges would have to beused,where steamers could not come near her, and where it would be tedious labor to get barges alongside, in consequence of the tide running across the shoals. The ship was high 'up out of water on the shoal; and much harder to be got afloat than if she had been on a beach nearer firm land. If she leaked, the pumps would be of little use after she got to rolling, as the loose cotton in the ship would get into and choke the pumps, an'd this ship had a very unusual quantity of cotton to haridle before she could 'be saved. Capt. Nelson says: .. I was Stared of my life all. Ui.e time. I was there. It is a dangerous shoH _ and about three miles from land, and a low, sandy b.-ach, and if that ship went down you would perish before youcotild get to land. If the ship broke up, there was nO'protectlon-for the men; they couldn't get anywhere."
THE SIR WILLIAM ARMSTRONG.
149
going into detail as to the manner in which the work progressed, it is sufficient to say that, by alternating the two barges, the Seymour and the Haggerty, one of them taking cotton bales off the Armstrong while the other was towed to Norfolk, discharged, and returned, the ship was entirely cleared of cotton between the 24th of January and 3d of February, except as to less than a hundred bales, which were got off on the 5th of February. The cotton was all got off, to the number of 5,271 bales, in the course of about 10 days, the two barges making each four trips to Norfolk. No casualties happened to the cotton taken off. All was landed safely at Norfolk; an of it entirely unimpaired in handling, except about a dozen bales used as fenders between the barges and, ship during the process of lightering. One of the salving party injured himself during the service, and died of his injuries. Capt. Coley and some others were severely injured. The operations of the salvors were greatly favored, most of the time, by the weather, which was fine almost beyond precedent for the sooson. But for this circumstanee the enterprise could hardly have been so completely successful as it was. .There was one spen of bad weather which occurred on the afternoon and night of the 30th of January. The wreckers endeavored to avail themselves of the high sea that then came on to heave upon the several anchors which they had planted out to seaward, and to get the ship out of the bed of sand where she had lain. By force of the ship's engines and the wind they succeeded in floating the ship, and in getting her well in motion, in tow of the Merritt; but it was the judgment of both Capt. Coley and Nelson that if she went out on the breakers she would be in danger of pounding herself to pieces on the bottom before she could be got out to sea; and so, after floating her as dE'scribed, on the night of the 30th, they determined to cut her loose from ·the tow, and let her drift to westward. When this was done, she went back for half a mile before grounding. When she did come aground, she was found to be within 200 fathoms of the inlet that has been de. scribed as running in to the south of Cobb's island. This fortunate circumstance rendered it practicable to heave her over into this channel, which work was accomplished in a day or two. When once in the inlet, the ship floated at ease. There all the cotton remaining in her holds were lightered off on a barge. Then the inlet which haFl been described as running up northeastwardly from the first one to deep water was sounded and buoyed, after which the ship was towed through it to sea, and, by the aid of the two wrecking steamers and two of the tugs which had been chartered, was towed to Norfolk, where she arrived on the 10th of February, 17 days after the salvage service had been entered upon by the libelants. The enterprise had been completely successful, the ship and all the cotton on her when taken in hand having been saved; neither ship nor cargo being in a more damaged .condition than when the service was commenced, on the 22d of January. Much the larger portion of the evidence taken in behalf of the ent consists of objections and complaints against the salvors for imputed tardiness in conducting their operations, from the alleged want of a
15U
FiIDERAL REPORTER,'
voL 53. '.
gte!i¢e;'namber ofbarges than the two that were employed, and a greater These objections seem to have been stimulated by a manbyltliename of Steele, and an agent ofasman' portion of the derwriters, named Coe, who made an: expedition to the place of operations,lliDd wtJre on board the Armstrong. for one or two days. A great deal ofthe '6vidence of the libelants iStaken up with refutations of these complaints. The complaints were made by men confessedly inexperiencedin.wrecking work, and especially so in the wrecking that is done on. the and Carolina seaboard. The testimony of Capts. Coley and 'Nelson, and several of their men, taken in reply to these complaints, seems,t6'me to show very plainly that they were made in ignorance of the wrecking art, and of the plan on which these wreckers operated, and of .theirreasons for the several measures which they took. But the taken on one side or the voluminous testimony alluded to, other, becomes practically. immaterial, in the light of the <lomplete successot the enterprise·. A sufficient flDswer to all complaints of the sort mentioned is that the ship and the cotton were saved from extraordinary .peril with ext]:'aordinary completeness. Finis coronat opus. AlthougQ,a. harmless, it is' an ungracious!,. pastime to abuse the bridge that carries one safely over trouble. I have not thought it necessary jin epitomizing the evidence taken in this case, to set out the impumtionsof dilatoriness, insufficiency, incompetency, and blundering made by: Capt. McKenzie against what he calls those "brutal wreckers," 'oftbe testimony in their own defense, given by a most worthy set: of men, ofundoubted akill, which constitutes, in my opinion, a full vindication of themselves. I 'pass, therefore, from the evidence in the case to the questions whidh it presents for decision. The first question arising is whether the contract for salvage which was entered' into between Capt. McKenzie and Capt. Coley before. the salvage service began is to be enforced or ignored by the court. It is well.setded text-book law that the master of a vesselin distress may bind the owner by a salvage agreement in the absence oUhe owner; that it is competent for salvors, instead of leaving the amount of their remuneration to be>determined by a,tourt, to agree with the master of a vessel in distress t{)render the required assistance for a specific sum; and that, if a salvage, a.greement be proved, the court will enforce it, unless it be clearly inequitable; it being no answer to an agreement to say, on one hand, that it is too hard ..upon the salvors, or, on the other, that the salvage services were attended by less difficulty than was anticipated. It is just 'as wen settled, on the other hand, that II; salvage contract may, as any other contract may, be set aside on the ground of duress, or fraud, or deception." or gross exorbitancy, or other reason that may be pronounced sufficient by a court of justice. In this respect a contract of salvage stands ,on the same, ground as all other contracts entered into between parties8ui juris, and therefore it is not because the contract now under consideration is a oontract of salvage that it can be disregarded by the court. Iwill set out the contract in full. The evidence shows that it was signed on a printed form, and that the blanks in the form used
151
were filled up by Capt. McKenzie himself, in his own handwriting, except the signatures. I will italicize the words and phrases written by Capt. McKenzie: "Application is hereby made for salvage assistance to the B1'itish steamer Sir William A1'mstrong, of Newcastle, whereof John McKenzie is master, which vessel, having on board a cargo consisting of 5,559 bales of cotton, $hipped at New 01'lean,Y, bound to Havre, now stranded off Cobb's island, which application is accepted by I··J. Merritt as salvor; it being understood that said 1. J. Merritt shall have the requisite possession and control of the property, and be entitled to the reasonable use of the material belonging to the vessel, and to the aid of the crew. It is also understood and agreed that 1. J. Merritt is to render the service on the follOWing terms, and be entitled to the follOWing' compensation: First, that said 1. J. Merritt. with proper dispatch, and at his own expense, is to send assistance to and endeavor to save said property. and deliver same, Norfolk. Va.,' second, that I. J. Merritt shall be paid 25% on all d1'y cotton sa'oed, 40% on all wet cotton saved, 20% on value of the steamer when saoed, at appraised value; third, that the compensation,if not agreed upon as above, shall be such as is just in the premises. Dated JanuaT1J 21st, 1892, "Vessel, by John McKenzie., "Cargo. by John McKenzie. " Wm. Ooley, Salvor. .. Robert Thompson, 1st Engr. "Thomas S. Knill, 1st Mate." Counsel for respondent object to this contract on the ground that, by the rates stipulated to be paid,discrimination is made against the cargo in favor of the ship. I do not think such discrimination is shown. The ship's net tonnage was 1,386. It so happened that the cotton saved, all told, constituted in weight about the same avoirdupois, or some 1,300 tons. This quantity was to be handled in upwards of 5,000 parcels, (bales,) of 489 pounds each, each parcel needing to be handled three timee,and was actually so handled; whereas the ship herself would be handled in solido, a single handling taking her into Norfolk. In towing the cotton to Norfolk, 100 miles were covered each trip. Certainly, if the single operation be worth 20 per cent. of the value of the large object saved in bulk, it does not seem exorbitant to have stipulated that 25 per cent. should be paid for saving 5,300 parcels, each requiring to be handled at least three times. The discrimination, on ordinary principles of business, would seem to be in favor of the cargo and against the ship, rather than otherwise. I think the objection of discrimination is refuted by the patent facts of the case, and is wholly untenable. No evidence was adduced to show that there was intentional discrimination. Another objection to the contract is made by Capt. McKenzie himself. In substance, it is that when the contract was signed it was agreed by Capt. Coley that it was not to be really a contract, but that the terms of his compensation should be settled by the National Board of Underwriters; that the contract was to be regarded as only a matter of form. This is an attempt by Capt. McKenzie, not only to vary a IVritten contract by evidence aliunde, which the courts very rarely permit to be done, but it is a self-stultifying objection. That he regarded the writing to be
152
,FEDERALREPORTEa,
a for some time after it was made is show,p by a letter written by him to the Merritts on the 29th of January, a week after the date of the contract, complaining of delay on their part in "carrying out your.contraot." Three days after the date of the contract he telegraphed to his owners in England, informing them that he had made the contract, and describing its terms; and no objection to it has come from them. Nor is there any evidence that during the whole period of 17 daysWheilthe work of salving his ship and her cargo was going on, opJection to the contract, or gave any intimation or indicahe made tion of hjs that the contract was a mere matter of form. Capt. Co]ey,.jn his testimopy, denies that anythlng was agreed npon or said to that .effeot, 'and it is not compatible with the good sense of the to the ;contract, as men of business, to suppose that the transaction was"Stlch Of)child's playas Capt. McKenzie pretends that it was., If asbleq:m contract, made under the\rpost serious circumthe Qne under, couldR'e, r;epudiated at pleasstances,. ure by orie of the parties to it, on such a ground, il.a that insisted upon here,noeotltraet could he relied upon as binding, and all the law of contracts; ;affecting so largely the affairs of mankind as that law does, wouldhave'to.:be treated as an idle jargon. Moreover, such an objection Capt. ¥cKenzie here, after he has received the full benefit of a faithful execution of it on the part of the Merritts, involves a gross breachiof faith on his part, and the court.isnot at liberty to en'tertainit.,'l1he objectionjin order to have been relieved of this fatal taint, should have been made before'the salvage service had materially progressed. :It comes too late now. The court cannot entertain such an objection to the contract. It is notpIietended, Rnd no evidence is produced to show, that the master wasl1nder duress in entering into this contract. From the first moment of his seeing Capt. Coley it was tmderstood that the latter would enter upon the work of saving ship and cargo, whateverthe terms might be. threat of refusing. to undertake the work unless the terms demanded were conceded. The contract was made· in the confidence that the salvage enterprise would go on as of course, whether a colltract was signed or not. By Capt. McKenzie's own testimony it appears that Capt., Coley agreed to receive a less percentage for the service than he originally demanded. It is also proved that Capt. Coley was unwilling to negotiate with Capt. :McKenzie alone. but requested the presence ofthe chief mate and the chief engineer, as advisers of the master. The evidence also shows that all three of these officers of the ship expressed satisfaction with the compensation provided for by the contract as just and fair. In short, few cases have been reported in which a ship's master was so free from all duress as was Capt. McKenzie on the occasion under consideration. The contract seems to rne to have heen reasonable, fair, and just, receiving the free, full, and eager consent of the master of the ship. I.will sign a decree allowing salvage compensation at the rates settled by the contract. The value of the cotton must be taken according to the estimate of Mr. Overton. The value of
THE ENOS B.PHILLIPS.
153
the ship must be taken at $60,000. I approve of Mr. Stratton's method ofarriving at this valuation, and disapprove of the method employed by Mr. Sanford, but willred'uce the former's estimate, in deference to conflicting opinions. THE ENOS B. PIDLLIPS. .LICHTENFJ<JLS et at v. THE ENOS B. PlnLLIPS. (District Court, D. New Jersey. December 12, 1892.)
TENDER-SUFFICIENCy-COSTS.
A libelant is entitled to disregard a tender of the amount claimed. with interest, made after the filing of ihe libel and the issuing of the monition, as a tender should cover accllled costs. A libel by a firm of ship chHlldlers at a New Jersey port for ad\"ances of $.i;)() to the master of the Phillips, a foreign vessel lying at a dock at l'iI:!W York, alleged that the master, when purchasing supplies for his vessel trom libelants, applied for the advances in order to free the vessel from liens for seamen's wages, and that .libelants made the advances without asking security. On the part of the libelee the master of the Phillips stated that after purchasing supplies he suggested to the libelants that they purchase of him an interest in another vessel, the Dow, in order to secure its custom and trade when in the port of New York, and that the $150 paid to him by libelants was for a one sixty-fourth interest in the Dow, and not to meet liens for seamen's wages against the Phillips. A captain subsequently in temporarr command of the Phillips stated that one of libelants expressly admitted in conversation with him that the firm had purchased a one sixty-fourth interest in the Dow; and the captain of the Dow stated that, when he afterwards arrived in New York, he was taken to libelants' store, where he purchased supplies for the Dow, and that libelantl'! said to him they expected him to purchase all his supplies from them, as they owned a one sixty-fourth interest in the Dow. Held, that the libel should be dismissed, all the weight of evidence was against it. OF EVIDENCE.
2.
MARITIME
In Admiralty. Libel by Robert Lichtenfels and John Lichtenfels against the schooner Enos B. Phillips for supplies, and to recover for advances to meet seamen's wages. Libel sustained as to supplies, :and dismissed as to the advances. Otto Crouse, for libelants. William S. Maddox, for claimants. GREEN, District Judge. Robert Lichtenfels and John Lichtenfels, trading as Li.chtenfels Bros., filed this libel against the schooner Enos B. Phillips to recover the sum of $181.51, with interest, which debt was alleged to have been contracted under the following circumstances: The libelants are ship chandlers in Hoboken, in this district, and as such, at tbe request of the captain of the Phillips, they furnished certai.n stores and supplies to the Phillips, amounting to the sum of $31.51. The claimants do not dispute that such stores were furnished w charged, that they were reasonably worth the price charged, and that they were furnished upon the credit of the vessel; a.nd to shield themselves they have paid into court the sum of $31.51, with interest thereon, as a tender to the libelants, and thereupon in-