On thе morning of June 20, 1806, the barges Pohatcong and Yayaug, partly laden with coal, in going uр the East river in tow of the tug Scranton, grounded on Man-of-War Rock, near the end оf the ledge running southerly from the southerly end of Blackwell’s Island. The Scranton returned to Hoboken to procure additional help in order to take the barges off the rock. While gone, the tug Ramsey, belonging to the libelants, came up and offered to pull the Pohatcong off. The captain, however, refused to receive any aid, saying his tug had gone to get help from the owners. The pilot of the Ramsey lay near by for a considerable time, renewing his former offer, and suggesting that thе tide would soon begin to ebb, and that the return of the Scranton would be too latе to get the barges off. The master of the Pohatcong, however, persistently rеjected these offers. Yot long afterwards the master of the Ramsey ordered a line thrown to the Pohatcong, and directed two seamen upon the latter to make it fast, which they did, and after a few minutes’ work, with some help from the tug McCarty, thе Poha+cong was pulled off the rocks and taken to the flats near Twenty-Sixth streеt, where she was anchored with hut little damage. When the captain of the Scrаnton returned not long after, the Yayaug could not be pulled off, and she remained on the rocks until the next tide.
The service rendered by the Ramsey, I have no doubt, wаs a bene- •
The master testifies that he wаs obeying the general orders of the superintendent of the line. It is quite possible thаt the general orders referred to were not designed to be applied in emergencies when obedience to them would involve great damage to the barge, which might be avoided by receiving aid. But it is equally possible that it was intended to rеly absolutely on tbe judgment of the master as to the kind and amount of danger to the bаrge in any case that might arise, and whether any deviation from his general instructions shоuld he made. His judgment in this case, in refusing aid when the tide was near turning, may, perhaps, have been mistaken, and the tugmen may have understood the necessities of the case better than he. But the case was one involving only ordinary property interеsts, and to a moderate amount; it did not involve imminent danger to life, nor the danger оf large losses of the property of third persons. The refusal of the master сannot be said to have been so palpably and so grossly wi-ong as to amount to positive misconduct in reference to the claims of humanity, or the property interests of others, so as legally to justify intervention against his will. The case wаs not, I think, outside of the fair scope of the master’s judgment: in the exercise of his аuthority under the instructions given him.
I must find, therefore, that the libelants, though rendering a service which I have no doubt was of some considerable value to the defendant, were nevertheless bound to respect the master’s decision, and had no legal right tо impose their services upon him. Whatever may be the libelants’ moral claim tо compensation, it is not one which the law can recognize. The J. W. Husted,
It will be better in the long run, for all concerned, that the value of salvage services shаll be fully appreciated, not merely from what is saved when the service is accepted, but through what is lost when it is injudiciously refused.
The libel is dismissed, but without costs.