received the money were the personal agents of the company, and their failure to perform the agreement was only personal, and did not bind the boat. Therefore the claim must be disallowed. The claim of Spangler under his mortgage for the balance of the purchase money is not disputed, nor are the claims for supplies and materials, claimed as liens under the state law, disputed; the question between them is one of priority only, upon which the rulings made by the circuit and district courts of the United States do not all agree. It was held by this court, in the case of The Emma, that the maritime liens have a priority over mortgages. I am satisfied that this is correct, and sustained by authority. But such liens must be strictly maritime. Materials and supplies furnished at the home port are only liens by force of the state statutes, and therefore do not stand on the same footing with maritime liens. So that their priority depends upon whether they attach before or after the mortgage lien commenced. This position is sustained by Judge Drummond, (The Grace Greenwood, 2 Biss. 131,) which was followed by Judge Blodgett in the ·case of The Kate Hinchman, 6 Biss. 367, and again by Judge Woodsin the case of The John T. Moore, 3 Woods, 61. The mortgage in this case was duly recorded in the office of the collector of customs of the home port prior to the existence of any of the liens so claimed. The Bradish Johnson, ld. 582. The result is that the balance dne Spangler upon his two notes for $750 each, with interest thereon, mnst first be paid out of the funds in the registry of the court, and the balance, if any, distributed pro rata among the claims for materials and supplies.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Louisiana. November 25,1881.)
1. SALVAGE-CC;>NTRACTS. Contracts as to the quantum of compensation for salvage servIces are bInding, provided they are reasonable, and without fraud or mistake.
2. SAME-SAME. Such contracts, when made with the master of a salvage vessel. bind the vessel but not the crew, unless made with their consent.
"Reporled by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
Emmet D. Craig, for libellants. R. de' Gray, for intervening appellants. W. S. Benedict, for claimants. PARDEE, C. J. The services rendered by the tug.boats and vessels, and their officers and crews, in aid of the Delambre, were undoubtedly salvage services. So far as they were rendered under specific contracts, these contracts should be the guide in fixing the compensation for such salvage services, provided they are reasonable, and without fraud or mistake, and bearing in mind that contracts only bind parties and privies. A contract as to the quantnm of salvage, made with the master of a salvage vessel, will bind the vessel but not the rest of the crew, if made without their sanction and concurrence. See The Britain, 1 W. Rob. 40; The Sarah Jane, 2 W. Rob. 110-115. And this rule is regarded in this court. The evidence in this case does not establish that the crew of the Harry Wright, the crew of the Ariel, or the tow-boat Confidence and her master and crew, were parties to any contracts, or sanctioned or concurred in any contracts, stipulating a quantum of compensation for salvage services rendered. The evidence is volum.inous and con· flicting, but this is the conclusion reached by Judge Billings, and I fully agree with him therein:
(1) The allowance made to the Confidence of $2,000 seems to be proper, considering the services rendered, and the circumstances of the service. The allowance of five-eighths to the boat and three-eighths to the crew. seems also properly proportionated. The services of the boat and her crew were not equal. The boat steamed a considerable distance, and helped to place the Ariel to receive cargo, all of which was ordinary service for the crew. (2) The owners of the Hany Wright, the tow-boats Joseph Cooper, Jr., C, C. Keyser, George \V. Childs, and Greyhound, all of which boats rendered and claimed salvage services in conjunction with each other, settled their claims for compensation with the claimants in this case for the sum of $3,300. This settlement seems to fix a fair allowance, and, considered in the light of an arbitration, may be taken as fixing the compensation of those boats and their crews. But of these services so rendered in conjunction, it seems that the Harry Wright's services were more valuable than any or all of the others. It was the Harry \Vright that, after the others ceased operations, took off from the disabled ship nearly 600 bags of coffee and safely delivered it on the wharf at Port Eads, carrying it up South-west PasfO and down South Pass. Of the $3,300 allowed all these boats, the Harry Wright should be regarded as entitled to at least $2,000; and that amount should be taken as the basis in fiXing the compensation, which we have seen the crew are entitled to, notwithstanding the contracts of her owners and agents. Of this $2,000, three-eighths to the master and crew is a fair proportion, considering the extra services of the
THE JOHN CU'I'IRELL.
boat in transporting cargo a long distance, where the services of tIle crew were ordinary services, within the scope of their duty. (3) The allowance made to the Ariel of $1,000 is consirlered satisfactory; but the seven men taken aboard at Port Eads are entitled to their pro mta share of the one-half thereof belonging to the crew. They are before the court, and should be allowed the same as landsmen regularly shipped the Ariel.
I only deem it necessary to say further in this case that, from the contracts made by the master and agents of the Delambre on one side and the tow-boats and tow-boat lines and Capt. Adams on the other, as they appear in the evidence, it seems that the Delambre is fully protected; and the real contest in this case is not interesting to that ship or her owners, but is really a contest among rival salvors as to the proper of salvage compensation amicably agreed on, and therefore it is not necessary that this court should join the proctor of the ship in properly characterizing the greed and schemes and morals of many of the parties who have figured in the matter of salvage in this case.
THE JOHN CUTTRELL.
(District (Jourt, E. D. New York. December 12, 1881.)
MARITIME LIENS-TOWAGE SERVICE-SALE UNDER A STATE
By the maritime law of the United States, one who performs towage services for a domestic vessel, on navigable waters of the United States, acquires a mar· itime lien on the vessel, which he can enforce by an admiralty proceedmg in rem" and the lien cannot be destroyed by a subsequent sale of the vessel under a state law.
On the facts of this case, a defence based on the ground of laches mnst fail.
In Admiralty. H. G. Hull, for libellant. Tunis G. Bergen, for claimant. BENEDICT, D. J. This is a proceeding in ",em to enforce a lien for services performed in towing the lighter John Cuttrell. The nature and amount of the services are admitted. These services were necessary to enable the lighter to make voyages and earn freight. It was by means of them that she was enabled to navigate. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that the services in question, rendered as they were in the performance of a maritime contract, are maritime in character. The demand is, then, within the jurisdiction of the admiralty. It is equally clear that these services, by reason of their