Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/182

168 FBDBiBAL, BEPOBTEB. �shipped on the Hndson at Cincinnati; four at Maysville, Kentucky; three at Huntingdon, West Virginia; five at Gallipolis, Oliip; and two at Parkersburgh, West Virginia. When running, the Hudson is once a week at Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, and twice a week at the inter- mediate points above named. The libellants claim that they were respectively hired at the rate of $25 per month for a round trip from and back to their several places of shipment. There is direct evi- dence tending to show that many of them were so hired. The re- spondents, however, deny that the hiring was for a round trip in the case of any of the libellants, and claim that when the boat was un- loaded at Pittsburgh they had the right to pay off and dismiss the crew. But they do not pretend that the libellants' terms of service then expired by express contract. There were no shipping articles, and the rcspondents' own evidence is that when the libellants were hired nothing was said as to the duration of their service. The boat reached Pittsburgh February 3d, and on that day, after the cargo was unioaded, the libellants were paid off and discharged. The river was then frozen over, and navigation between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati remained suspended on account of ice for a period of eight days.. �If there was here no express agreement as to the time of service, what would the law imply under the circumstances? This subject is discussed by Judge Treat, of the eastern district of Missouri, in the well-considered case of Worth v. Lioness, 11 Pittsb. Leg. J. (M. S.) 1 87. It is there declared that where there are no shipping articles, and no prescribed voyage stated, the implied contract or legal presumption, when a mariner is shipped, is that he is to be returned to the port of shipment, and that the rule applies as well to internai as to ocean navigation. It is true, the Lioness was a tow-boat, engaged in tow- ing coal on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, while the Hudson is an Ohio river packet, plying between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. But this difference in the nature of their employment and character of their voyages is, I think, immaterial. The rule as stated by Judge Treat is a most reasonable one, and is applicable to the circumstances of the present case. When these libellants respectively shipped on the Hudson, it was undoubtedly in the contemplation of all parties that the boat would return, according to the ordinary course of the trade in which she was engaged, to the varions places of shipment, and the libellants had a right to assume, in the absence of express noti- fication to the contrary, that they would be brought back. If they had been informed that they were liable, in case navigation should unexpectedly close, to be put off the Hudson at Pittsburgh without ��� �