HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0448 and id is 1 raw text is: including the freight, I should not do injustice to any of the parties, and it must
be recollected, that, in proportion to the value, the freight must pay for any sum
which I may adjudicate to the salvors.
Having thus endeavoured to settle the amount of the value, the next considera-
tion is, who were the persons who performed the service ? It is stated that there
were three steamers, the value of which [234] exceeds £30,000 ; that they had 58
men on board ; that one vessel was employed for six days, another for four days,
and the other for three days. With respect to the service itself, it appears not to
have been attended with much risk or danger. I think the cargo was in danger, not
merely from the condition of the ship (described by the master in his protest to be
such that it was impossible to get her off, and that the water flowed into her whenever
the tide rose), but for another reason, namely, that although the weather was moderate
during the whole time the service was rendered, yet it is clear that, by one of those
contingencies which so frequently happen at that season of the year, the weather
might have changed, and then the ship and cargo would have been in very con-
siderable danger ; and all these contingencies must be taken into consideration
when my judgment is to be formed in a question of this kind.
Now looking at the whole case, not altogether forgetting that one of these vessels
was engaged to carry passengers from Margate to London, and though, perhaps,
at that season of the year, such engagement must be presumed to have been of no
great value to the owners, yet it is not altogether to be left out of the question, since
the disappointment of the passengers might work subsequent inconvenience to the
owners-taking all these circumstances into consideration, I think I shall not allot
a very extravagant sum to be paid by both the tea and the freight, if I allot the sum
of £1500.
With respect to the tin, that appears to me to stand on a totally distinct and
different foundation. I am at a loss to conceive how there could be any [235] agree-
ment for bringing up the ship without the tin on board her, and which was per-
forming the office of ballast. I apprehend, that agreement must of necessity include
the bringing up the tin. If it did not, I know of nothing more dangerous than
setting a precedent, when a cargo is on board a ship, of making an agreement with a
party for salvage of the ship and not the cargo, that would open a door to every
description of fraud. Only contemplate the consequences, supposing the whole
cargo had been on board, and an agreement, under circumstances which would give
to the service the character of a salvage service, had been made by the master, who
should say, You shall bring up the ship to London for £50, and do the best you can
against the owners of the cargo ; why it would be an encouragement to fraudulent
bargains by owners and masters of vessels, to the detriment of owners of the cargo,
and of course salvors would make a bargain much more advantageous to the owners
of the ship with the master when they are sure of obtaining his assistance to get a
larger salvage from the owners of the cargo. If there was any such agreement in
this case (which I am not at all disposed to conjecture, on the contrary, I believe,
that the agreement included the bringing up of the tin), but if there were, I should
decidedly set my face against it ; and I now state that should I ever find this to be
the case, or anything at all approaching to it, I shall at once refuse to pronounce
any salvage due at all under such circumstances.
I am of opinion that, with respect to the tin, it is perfectly clear that no salvage
ought to be claimed ; therefore, I dismiss that subject entirely from consideration.
[236] THE EAGLE - (Litty). June 8, 1841. -- A wrongful dispossession of
original seizors confers no title to the second seizors in the bounties awarded by
Act of Parliament on the tonnage of a condemned slave ship. Construction
of the Act 5 Geo. IV, c. 113, s. 71, and of the treaty with Spain, 28th June 1835.
Court of Admiralty not excluded by a sentence of the Mixed Commission Court
from considering the question to whom the bounties or the proceeds arising from
the condemnation belong. £960 paid by the Lords oi the Treasury, as bounties,
to the agent of the second seizor, directed to be brought in and paid over to the
agent of the original seizors. Costs against the second seizor not given.
[S. C. 1 Notes of Cas. 64.]
In this case the Eagle, equipped for the slave trade, and navigated under
American colours, and with an American pass and master on board, whilst at anchor
560
THE EAGLE'
I W. ROB. 231.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0448&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)