MUNTZV. A' BAFt 01' TIMBER.
MUNTZ
and otHers 'v..A RAFT
OF TIMBER.-
(Oircuit Court, JURIsnlCTION-RAFT-SALVAGE.
D. Louisiana. JaI;l.uary, 1883;) _ , _ ,
In ,a case where a raft is adrift in a fog on the Mississippi river, in peril of loss to itself and to other j>roperty,where the on the raft in charge called for assistance, and services of a maritime chara:cterwere rendered, and the court entertained and maintainedjUrisdictiotiofa libel for salvage, its decision need not be taken as holding that a raft is a vehicle of nav· igation, or can commit a ma.ritime tort. 1'ome v. Four Cribs Lumber, Taney, 536,
In Admiralty. -()n petition for a rehM'ring. R. Kin9'o1ftle,'r,fo,r libelant. E. Warren, for claimants. '. PARDEE, J. A is applied fOr on of 'Gastrel v: Cypre,s Raft; '2 Woods, 213 ; Jones v. Ooa-l BaJ'ge,;': 3- Wall. Jr. 53; Tome v. Four Oribs Lumber,HTaney, 5'36. The case it! Woods' Reports was a claim made for the ownership .of, by trespassers on lands in Mississippi, and.· ,in,cprporated .witJ;t\o.ther logs in the raft in controversy. ,',rhe h,etween, ,twQbarge!3· eit.beJ:of ,cases Qlles(tion before the The pase in ',{lalley, it :bYrqlaima.:p.ts' ,in,tpis the -merits th/Jon ,upon the ,ot,tllO The court however:, c;>f this opinion i$ tha,t the, fjtTel}m,: I\lthough;it ,1)1i}); .a. river. are nqt t1?-e. ,s,ui:>ject-mlltter ,9f, in where the right of prop,erty or ppsse!isi911 i )
It is not necessary to thia il;t"the Taney cllose, .in order to juris4iction itl this 01 araftanchoreQ, or,OI;le .afloat,laocprdiug to the ;\lsage QU}J.e,ttQ;de, ihilloOasElshowed in.IloJp8, .age to .itself a n 4 to op"t\Iie a.ntil in chlMSe caHe4:foJj assiat3ltlce,J /l-041 a· ;were The in,thig,case ;peed I).ot JJe iqg ,that.ai raft ia a vehicle :of naviga.tioJ:h or, ,(,lan" oJt, ,or ,ItS bei,ng han: a bale. of :cptton,would undeJr stances.. . The for re,hearillg is, refused. i i
I
"-'Reported by JosephP.
of the New Orleans
'(District Oourt, So' D. 1.
January, 1883.) ,A,J:>'V;I.1iC:Ji:S-SUBRQGA'l'IO:Ii.
Although, tIle of a ship, or the ship'shusbanj, has no, mll,ritime lien for .. 1Uade in the usual course of his employment about the p1fsiness of the, ship, becaus\lmad\J presumably on the, <;redit of the owners.'Y9t when the show that his agency was an attendant upon his situation as mortgagee of the vessel, the pUl'pose of further security, his advances in the managemeJ;lt of the ship's business should be held to be made, not upon the 'of the mortgagor, but upon the credit of the vessel, and for the protection of his mortgage; and a maritime ·lien should, therefore, be sustained in 'his favor for such necessary payments and supplies as would be liens in favor of other persdns,'imd he should be deemed ' equitably subrogated to the liens paid by him.
2. SAME...,.Np !FOR The ,agen,t:s own not,'however, be
VOWlISSIO:li8,
' "
.for advancea al\d for as liens. . ,
fl'eights should
lit. Admiralty. .;, 'W. R. Beebe,'proctot'for iibelant. John B. Whiting, proctor lor c!:",imant. BROWN, J. This caUse, 'having :been tried before a. commissioner to whom it was referred, comes before me upon exceptions to 'hhl'report in'ftJivot of·thErIibellintS' for the sum of $4;150.10. The 'lilielant is the receiver of Brett, Son & Co., who, in March, 1875, took a mortgage upon five-eighths of the bark, to secure $10,00() from John·C; Williams; to whom they advanced that money to aid in tbeconstruction of the vesseL The bark was built at 'N ova. Scotia;' was a British.vessel. At the 'time of the advances it'was agre-ed that Brett,' Son & Co.; for their security, should have· this mortgage, and also be the agents of the ship in New York. The Was filed in October, 1882, to recover a. balance due to Brett, Son & Co. for'various 'advances and payments on account of' the ship from Februaty 24 to 'Ma.ySl, 1882; and a supplementary'libel was aftez:watds filed for additional charges and payments. DtlI'ing several ye:a.rsafter the bark was finished, Williams was in eharg& Of' hernavigMion as master and as owner of five-eighths, BrtiH',iSOb.& .cd:; being her agents' in New York. Prior to the, -chai'ges for,whicn the libel is' brought, however, Williams had left the vessel, and was succeeded by the first mate, Smith, as master, who is not a part owner; and the· bushlessof the bark rema.ined under the management of Son & 0,;>., as before. . So ,far ,as appears from