although under circumstances which without such assent would not have sustained it, as in the case of recapture or recovery of the ship, by such agreement he will be bound. There is another class of decisions where the assured has abandoned because the port whither he was bound was shut against him, and although his commodities for sale were perishable, as fish, it was in such a case held, 3 Bosanquet & that the adventure was not within the stipulations in the policy, and consequently that the verdict in favour of the underwriter was right. Puller, 388, Hadkinson v. 11. East, 22, By the same principle, a ship ordered away from her destined port, was held not to be protected in her voyage to the nearest friendly port, there having been a specific Parkin v. Tunno. Voyage agreed on, and the new course being out of it. Id. 205, Forster Nor where she deviated from her intended place of discharge, being alarmed on account of a hostile embargo. v. Christie; 1 Campbell, 454, Blackenhagen v. London Assurance; and see 12 East, 283, Brown v. Vigne. See Park, 267. 276. There has arisen a very considerable question between the underwriters on freight and those on ship; the assured upon a loss would abandon the one to the underwriter on freight, and the other to the ship insurer. Vessels have then been recovered, and they have returned home, and their owners have received the freight due. Not being entitled to it themselves by reason of their abandonment, they have held the money, as it were, like stakeholders, till the question could be set at rest by the decision of the Judges. Much discussion took place on the subject, and although the particular cases were for some years decided upon their own peculiar merits, the leaning of the Courts seemed to be strongly in favour of the underwriter on ship. And in a recent case Chief Justice Gibbs thought abandonment not necessary, as he could not understand Ex. Assurance. what was to be abandoned. And it has been very 4 Bingham,388, recently determined, that abandonnment is not necessary upon a loss in an insurance for freight. However at 6 Taunton, 69, 8 Taunton, 755, Idle v. Royal Mount v. Harri son. wyn, 79, Case same case in' v. Davidson; at length it was determined by three Judges against one (y), and subsequently in the Exchequer chamber 5 Maule & Selupon appeal, that the underwriter on ship was entitled to the freight, and upon the principle, that the freight follows the assignment of the ship being incident to it, and that the agreement of the parties could not Broderip & disturb the legal effect of the abandonment. Bingham, 379. The time for abandonment of goods is the earliest opportunity after a cargo has been examined, it must not be at the assured's will upon the rise or fall of the market, nor, after they have communicated with the underwriters respecting repairs, upon finding that the salvage and repairs will exceed the ship's value, though, as we have seen, it is otherwise if they abandon at once. And it must be done within a reasonable time, as also must a repudiation by the underwriter be communicated as early as possible. Five days, after intelligence received by the assured of their loss, was considered in one case too long a delay; and there are other cases, which point out the danger of any delay which is not absolutely indispensable. However, the assured must have a fair opportunity of amining his effects with reference to the existing state of the market and if the underwriter attempt to dissuade the party from abandonment, he will be liable for all subsequent losses. : Salvage. ex Salvage generally accrues by reason of services rendered on occasions of sea-peril, or on re-capture, and the Courts give great encouragement to the enterprises of salvors, rewarding them in proportion to their labour and skill. Indeed, a person may retain goods till payment of (z) Bayley. the Exchequer Chamber, 2 See Park, 279. 2 Marshall, 91. Martin v. Croc14 East, 465, katt: 3 Broderip & Hudson v. Bingham, 97, Harrison. 5 Maule & Sel wyn, 47, Hunt v. Royal Ex. surance. 2 Marshall, 88, v. Newnham. 1 Lord Raymond, 393. Who may claim. 2 Taunton, 302, Sutton v. Buck. his salvage, as well as a tailor, an ostler or a common carrier it is a recompence allowed by all nations. With respect to the persons who may claim salvage, it is now clearly established, that the interference of individuals in cases where the owners of the property are quite sufficient to save it without any aid, will not be sanctioned as a ground for a right of this kind. And so the lord of a manor could not entitle himself to salvage by taking parts of a wreck, although thrown upon his manor, the owner's servants being on the spot to preserve it. But where the officers of a king's ship found incapable and improper persons (who were the original salvors) in possession of a cargo of Government stores, they were 1 Dodson, 413, held justified in interposing, although they might not otherwise have done so; for, as a general principle, one party has not a right to meddle with another, provided 1 Edwards, 175, the first are competent to bring the vessel safe into Blenden Hall ship. The Maria. 1. Haggard, The Raikes. Puller, 612, port. The proprietors of a steam-boat received great encouragement from the Court of Admiralty, by reason of the Admiralty, 246, power which their vessel possessed, and the alacrity with which her duty was performed. And a passenger, who took the command of the ship, and carried her Bosanquet & safely into harbour, was considered to be entitled to a remuneration, inasmuch as he had placed himself in a situation of responsibility. The jury, estimating his services, gave him 4007., and the Court refused to disturb their verdict. It is observable, that this last case proceeded on the ground of the passenger having incurred a certain responsibility; ordinarily, the exertions of a passenger, being in the performance of his duty, cannot be made the foundation of a recompence. Newman v. Walters. Abbott, 401. Acts done in the course of duty do not create the right; as where a hired transport which had been deserted in Spain by her sailors was brought out of harbour by one of his Majesty's ships, here the crew of the man-of-war were not allowed any salvage for their service (a). 1 Edwards, 66, Belle ship. And so it was where part of the crew having mutinied, the remainder overpowered the insurgents, for, however meritorious the conduct of the well-affected might be, it was still no more than their duty to check the re- Governor Rafbellion. 2 Dodson, 14, fles. The Court will protect foreigners against imposition, and, although they must pay for services actually afforded them, a claim of salvage must not be ingrafted 4 Robinson, on their local ignorance. It should be remembered, that the reward of salvage is given for the preservation of ships, and property recovered from wreck or other sea peril; and, therefore, the mere saving of life, meritorious as it may be, will not entitle the party to salvage. Although if such a laudable 103, the Vrouw Margaretha. act can be connected in any way with accident, the Haggard, 83, Court will be able to take notice of it. This claim may be made in the Courts of Common Law or Admiralty, (b) and, as we shall see presently, by magistrates under certain circumstances; but it is very common to sue for salvage in the Admiralty, where the better course is to tender " by acts of Court, and not "personally and verbally to the claimants, a specified "sum for the salvage, accompanied by an offer to pay "the costs incurred." The Court will then, if they con Aid ship. (a) But for services rendered to merchant vessels in distress, and not in the course of warfare, salvage is allowed. 1 Haggard, 158, Mary Ann. (b) That is to say, claims for salvage at sea are within the Admiralty jurisdiction, such as between the high and low water-marks, are cognisable by the Admiralty and common law Courts. 53 Geo. 3, c. 87; 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 75. L Abbott, 403. Id. 397. 6 Robinson, 88, See 12 Anne, stat. 2, c. 18; 26 Geo. 2, c. 19. sider the tender sufficient, cause the other party to pay the costs on both sides. The Court of Admiralty takes into consideration the labour and activity of the salvors, for, at common law, there is no positive rate of salvage. And, therefore, we find the reward decreed to be sometimes one-sixth of the value of the property, sometimes two-fifths, &c. And where freight has commenced, it will be made contributory, as well as the ship and cargo. For the purpose of affording a more speedy and economical method of adjustment in cases of salvage, several statutes have passed. It is not our intention, nor would it be consistent with the nature of this work, to go through these enactments in detail, the principal provisions will, therefore, be very briefly noticed. The calling in of sufficient assistance, by sheriffs and other officers, for the preservation of the distressed vessel and its cargo-the description of the persons authorized to command in such an exigency, in order to prevent confusion-the repression of unjust violence— the publication of the ship's name, of its owners, &c. for the information of the persons interested—the mode of adjusting claims of salvage-and of paying off the claims when adjusted-were subjects of attention more than a century since. Subsequently, other exigencies were provided, and omissions supplied. Thus, by other statutes (c), the case of salvors acting under the mere authority of the commander of the ship in distress was provided for; the sale of perishable goods, at the instance of the parties interested, or of the salvors, was permitted (d); the passage of carts and carriages used for the preservation of wrecks, over lands intervening, was (0) 48 Geo. 3, c. 130; 49 Geo. 3, c. 122; 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 75. (d) 53 Geo. 3, c. 87; 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 75. |