48 F. 923 | S.D.N.Y. | 1891
The compensation awarded in a court of admiralty for salvage services is not giveu as a mere quanUim meruit for the work and labor done, but on grounds of public policy, in ilie interest of navigation, and for the safety of property and life, and as an encouragement and reward for the readiness, promptitude, and energy necessary to secure those ends, both in the conduct of the salvors personally, and for the vessels and other appliances previously'' provided for such service. Viewed as a reward, therefore, salvage is not properly a subject of any binding contract in advance, except as a limitation of the salvors’ demands. In cases of present distress and peril the very necessity for salvage service presupposes that the parties do not stand upon equal terms as respects any contract they may make on the subject, any more than a captured prisoner in stipulating with brigands for his ransom. While a sum agreed on in advance and in the presence of danger niayr, therefore, limit the salvor, it lias little or no binding effect upon the other party. All courts of admiralty freely examine into the circumstances in the interest of the latter, and award no more than a reasonable sum, without regard to the amount agreed on. See Chapman v. Engines, etc., 38 Fed. Rep. 671, 672, and cases there cited. The Code of the Netherlands, to which country this vessel belonged, like the Codes of several other maritime countries, expressly provides (section 5(58) that any agreement as to salvage compensation made at sea before the danger is over '•'can be modified or annulled by the judge.”
I11 the present ease the Schiedam had become wholly disabled in her machinery, so as to be compelled to anchor some 15 miles to the east
Decree for $1,000, and costs.