caused to lose. Sprague v. West, Abbott, Adm. 554. And as, in the
eye of the l%w, maritime, upon commercial reasons, the master of
the ship is deemed to contract, in respect to the freight, rather with
the merchandise than with the shipper, and his rights are, therefore,
not made to depend upon any doctrine of agenoy. Hyperion's
Cargo, 2 Low. 94. So, upon the same grounds, the contract to re-
move this merchandise — whioh merchandise, it must be remembered,
was the cargo of the brig actually on board as such — should be
deemed to have been made with the merchandise as well as with the
buyers thereof, and the merchandise, in consequence, is chargeable
with the loBB arising from the non-performance of that contract.
There must be a decree in favor of libellant for the sum of $120, and costs.
The Ohoteau.
(Oirouit Court, E. D. Louisiana. June, 1881.)
Balvors cannot force themselves on a vessel agaiast the will of the master.
In Admiralty, M. M. Cohen, for libellants. . MicoM, for claimants.
Paedeb, D. J. In this case I Kave found no necessity to elab- praitely. find and write ont the facts. There is disagreement on only tw,o points: (1) Whether the Ohoteau rang her bell rapidly for assistance. (2) Did the Protector get her Une aboard the Ohoteau and throw any water on the fire and render assistance? Both of these I find against the libellants. The bell of the Ohoteau was rung three times for a landing, and was not rung for assistance. The fact is that the Protector's captain.hearing of the fire, and hear- ing a bell rung, run his boat alongside the Ohoteau, and attempted to assist in quenching the fire, but his offers of assistance were rejected, and his attempts prevented by the master of the Ohoteau, who was able and willing to and did take care of his own boat. Salvors cannot force themselves upon vessels in distress against the will of the master. It is at his option to accept their services or not, and if he refuse them compensation cannot be recovered for assistance subse- quently rendered against his will. The Brig Susrm, 1 Sprague, 502. That the sailors have no right to aet agaiust the will of the master. The.Dodge Healy, 4 Wash. 657; The Bee, Ware, 332,
THE CHOTEAU, 211
�caused to lose. Sprague v. West, Abbott, Adm. 554. And as, in the eye of the l%w, maritime, upon commercial reasons, the master of the ship is deemed to contract, in respect to the freight, rather with the merchandise than with the shipper, and his rights are, therefore, not made to depend upon any doctrine of agenoy. Hyperion's Cargo, 2 Low. 94. So, upon the same grounds, the contract to re- move this merchandise — whioh merchandise, it must be remembered, was the cargo of the brig actually on board as such — should be deemed to have been made with the merchandise as well as with the buyers thereof, and the merchandise, in consequence, is chargeable with the loBB arising from the non-performance of that contract, �There must be a decree in favor of libellant for the sum of $120, and costs. ���The Ohoteau. �(Oirouit Court, E. D. Louisiana. June, 1881.) 1. Balvaob. �Balvors cannot force themselves on a vessel agaiast the will of the master. �In Admiralty, �M. M. Cohen, for libellants. �4. MicoM, for claimants. �Paedeb, D. J. In this case I Kave found no necessity to elab- praitely. find and write ont the facts. There is disagreement on only tw,o points: (1) Whether the Ohoteau rang her bell rapidly for assistance. (2) Did the Protector get her Une aboard the Ohoteau and throw any water on the fire and render assistance? Both of these I find against the libellants. The bell of the Ohoteau was rung three times for a landing, and was not rung for assistance. The fact is that the Protector's captain.hearing of the fire, and hear- ing a bell rung, run his boat alongside the Ohoteau, and attempted to assist in quenching the fire, but his offers of assistance were rejected, and his attempts prevented by the master of the Ohoteau, who was able and willing to and did take care of his own boat. Salvors cannot force themselves upon vessels in distress against the will of the master. It is at his option to accept their services or not, and if he refuse them compensation cannot be recovered for assistance subse- quently rendered against his will. The Brig Susrm, 1 Sprague, 502. That the sailors have no right to aet agaiust the will of the master. The.Dodge Healy, 4 Wash. 657; The Bee, Ware, 332, ��� �
