Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/188

THE ALCONA. 173 �usage to that effect. A cu$tom cannot thus be proved by isolated cases. Cope v. Dodd, 13 Pa. St. 33. �We are, then, left to deal with the nated question whether expense incurred in getting off a vessel stranded in a place of safety can be the subject of a general average contribution. Cases in which steam-power is employed in bauling off stranded vessels are not •strictiy cases of general average, but are treated in the books as rather in the nature of general average. The law upon this subject originated in cases of jettison, apd most of the earlier cases relate to actions brought to recover contributions for goods thrown ovQrboard> or masts, cables, or rigging sacrificed to relieve vessels in distress. After the invention of steam-power the same principle was extended to expenses incurred for tugs hirod to haul off stranded vessels from a dangerous shore ; but I do not understanid that the general princi- ple upon which allowances of thjis kind are made bas been at all enlarged in this new class of cases;, and I apprehend the expense of tugs for this purpose would not be allowed in any case where, ifother equally prudent and effieacious measures of relief had been adoptedj (such, for exainple, ias a Jettison pf a part of tHe cargo,) the loases thereby voluntarUy incurred wonld not be held the subject of a geii- eral average contribution. It would be unreasonable to say thait a vessel in peril may select one method of relief and obtaiu an allow- ance by way of general average, while, if she selects another method of accomplishing the same thing, the loss would be hers alone. Hence it seems to me quite clear that we must look only to the cir- cumstances in which this vessel was placed, and not to the particular measures employed, to determine whether the case is a proper one for contribution. �Now, referring to the authorities upon the subject, I take it thai nothing is better settled than that a voluntary sacrifice of a portion of the vessel and her cargo can only be justified to save the remain* der from an imminent danger of loss. �In 2 Arnold, Insurance, 883, it is said: "It is an undoubted requi- site of general average loss that it should have been incurred under pressure of a real and imminent danger." And at page 884 it is said : "The sacrifice must have been made under an urgent pressure of some real and immediately-impending danger, and must have been resorted to as the sole means of escaping destruction. " �In the case of the Columbian Ins. Co. v. Ashby, 13 Pet. 331, in which it was held that the voluntary stranding of a ship in imminent peril ��� �