enhances the amount of salvage for saving property. Cohen, Ad. Law, 49 (1883). The Emblem, 2 Ware, 68; The George Nicholson, Newberry, 449; The Boston, 1 Sumner, 328. In The Plymouth Rock, 9 Fed. Rep. at p. 418 (1881), Brown, J., said: "On the other hand, the large number of passengers whose lives were involved in the safety of the vessel is in this case an important consideration, although by the general maritime law, aside from statute, the saving of human life, dissociated from the saving of property, is not a subject of salvage compensation, but left to the bounty of individuals; yet, when connected with the rescue of property, it is uniformly held to enhance the meritorious character of the services and the consequent remuneration. The Aid, 1 Hag. 84; The Queen Mab, 3 Hag. 242; The Emblem, Daveis' Rep. 61; The Fusilier, 3 Moo. P. C. 51; Marvin on Salvage, sec. 121.

Life salvage is now expressly provided for by the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, ss. 458, 459; but we have no similar statute in this country." It will be noticed that this statement of the law corresponds with that in force in England prior to 1846.

FORFEITURE OF SALVAGE.

Misconduct or negligence on the part of the salvors may in

1888

THE

duce the Court to reduce the amount of salvage, or to refuse it altogether. Violent and over- ST. CLOUD. bearing conduct on the part of the salvors will operate to diminish the amount of salvage. The Marie, 7 P. D. 203. In The Yan-Yean, 8 P. D. 147, refusing to allow the master on board his ship worked a forfeiture of salvage. Want of skill in manoeuvring the salving vessel was held a sufficient ground to diminish the amount by one-half. Dwina (1892) P. 58. Salvors forcibly preventing the mate and two of the crew from going in the boat with them were deprived of all salvage, and the suit was dismissed with costs. The Capella (1892) P. 70.

The

Both salvors and finders are under an implied obligation to use good faith, honesty, skill and energy. The Ida L. Howard, 1 Low. at p. 6; mismanagement, or unskilfulness, or gross negligence on the part of the salvors, seriously and injuriously delaying the rescue, may reduce, or even forfeit, the compensation, although the property may ultimately be brought safe ashore. The Katie Collins, 21 Fed. Rep. 409; there must be good faith, meritorious service, complete restoration, and incorruptible vigilance on the part of the salvors. Cromwell v. The Island City, 1 Black, 121; so also spoliation or gross negligence will work a forfeit. The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat.

1888 THE

152. The same result may follow upon evidence of an intent ST. CLOUD. to embezzle. The Sumner, 1 Brown, 52; but to cause a forfeiture of salvage there must be evidence of misconduct on the part of the salvors. The thoughts or desires of salvors are immaterial, unless their conduct be influenced thereby. The Cherokee, 31 Fed. Rep. 167. An intention, however, on the part of salvors not to perform all the service required by the ship in distress, or to protract from improper motives the duration of the service, will entail a forfeiture of all right to salvage. The Magdalene, 31 L. J. Ad. 22; s. c. 5 L. T. N. S. 807. But in all cases the evidence of misconduct must be conclusive to induce the Court to deny or diminish the amount of salvage remuneration. The Charles Adolphe, Swa. p. 156; and the burden of proof is on those alleging misconduct. The Atlas, 15 Moo. P. C. 329; s. c. Lush. 518. See The Glory, 14 Jur. 676; s. c. 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 551.

PLEADINGS, ETC.

In salvage suits it is desirable, if not necessary, to state the leading details of the service more at length than indicated by the Rules. The Isis, 8 P. D. 227; and to introduce into the statement of claim as many ingredients of a salvage service as possible. See The Clifton, 3

Hag. 120. The ship salved

should not be arrested for an exorbitant amount, as the salvors thereby run the risk of being condemned in costs for procuring bail for such an amount. The George Gordon, 9 P. D. 46. Parties will not usually be allowed at the hearing to contradict their affidavits of value. See The Hanna, 3 Asp. 503; s. c. 37 L. T. N. S. 364. If the plaintiffs think the defendants' affidavits of value unsatisfactory, they should take out a commission of appraisement. The Varuna, W. & Br. 429 n. Fair and reasonable agreements fixing the amount of salvage will generally be upheld. The True Blue, 2 W. Rob. 176; but such agreements may be set aside as inequitable. The Medina, 2 P. D. 5. See also The Silesia, 5 P. D. 177; The Monarch, 12 P. D. 5. Where the defendants admit the allegations of the statement of claim, the action. is tried upon the pleadings, and the parties are precluded from calling any evidence at the hearing. The Hardwick, 9 P. D. 32; an admission of the facts alleged, but a denial of the inferences of fact set forth in the statement of claim, will enable the plaintiffs to call evidence to establish the inferences. Admission by pleading extends to matters of fact, but not of law. The Peerless, Lush. 103. Salvors cannot proceed against the ship and

cargo in rem, and in personam against the consignees of cargo in the same libel. The Sabine, 101 U. S. 384. Clifford, J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, at p. 388, says: "Actions in rem are prosecuted to enforce a right to things arrested to perfect a maritime privilege or lien attaching to a vessel or cargo, or both, and in which the thing to be made responsible is proceeded against as the real party; but actions in personam are those in which an individual is charged personally in respect to some matter of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Both the process and proceedings are different, and the appropriate decree in the one might be absolutely absurd in the other." It was held in The Hope, 1 W. Rob. 154, that an action in personam cannot be engrafted on one in rem. But where there is a remedy both in personam and in rem, a person who has resorted to one of the remedies may, if he does not get thereby fully satisfied, resort to the other. The Orient, L. R. 3 P. C. 696. Salvage suits may be consolidated on the motion of the plaintiffs, and without the consent of the defendants. The Melpomene, L. R. 4 A. & E. 129. In Houseman v. The North Carolina, 15 Pet. 40, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Admiralty Court alone has jurisdiction to try a question of salvage.

1888

THE

But it has been held by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick that while questions relat- ST. CLOUD. ing to salvage can usually be better adjudicated upon in the Admiralty than in any other Court, and, where apportionment of the amount among several claimants is asked for, it is probably a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, yet where the claim is simply for salvage services, and no question of apportionment arises, an action at law can be maintained, per Allen, C. J., and Wetmore, J., Weldon, J., dissenting. Copp v. Read, 3 Pugsley, 527 (1876).

The mas

This question has recently been under consideration in the Courts of Ontario. A vessel was stranded on the northern shore of Lake Erie. ter telegraphed to the manager of a wrecking company at Detroit for tugs and wrecking appliances, which the manager, by telegram, agreed to furnish. They were accordingly sent, and the stranded vessel was saved. The plaintiffs claimed to recover an amount exceeding the value of the vessel, made up of per diem charges for the tugs and appliances. Held, that in actions in the High Court, salvors, in the absence of a specific or express agreement to the contrary, must be taken to render their services under and subject to the rule of the Admiralty Court,

1888

THE

limiting the maximum amount of salvage to a moiety of the ST. CLOUD. Value of the salved vessel, and cargo, if any, which rule is equally applicable to wrecking companies as to ordinary vessel owners; that the agreement must define a specific amount as to the salvage to be paid or a rule whereby it may be determined; and that there was no agreement in this case, but merely a request to perform the service. It also appears that the master cannot, by express agreement, bind the owners to pay salvage beyond the value of the vessel. The International Wrecking and Transportation Co. v. Lobb, 11 O. R. 408 (1886). The point as to jurisdiction does not appear to have been raised, except as to the amount of damage to be allowed, which was awarded under the Admiralty rule. Under the provisions of "The Wrecks and Salvage Act," c. 55, sec. 24 (Can.), now R. S. C., c. 81, sec. 43, it is provided that when any ship within the limits

of Canada is wrecked, abandoned, stranded, or in distress, all salvage services rendered shall be payable as are reasonable under the circumstances; but under sec. 56 of c. 81 it is also provided that nothing therein shall be taken to affect the jurisdiction of any Court of ViceAdmiralty in Canada in any matter or case, civil or criminal.

In salvage cases there is no rule binding a Court of Appeal not to interfere with an award unless the amount is so large or so small that no reasonable person could fairly arrive at that sum; but the amount awarded will be diminished or increased if, after a careful cousideration of the facts, and after giving every possible weight to the view of the judge, the Court is of the opinion that the amount is so large as to be unjust to the owner of the ship which has been in distress, or so small as to be unjust to the salvors. The Accomac (1891), P. 349. See also The Lancaster, 9 P. D. 14.