1. A seaman filed a libel against a cargo
of coal, to enforce a lien for his wages
upon freight money alleged to be due
from E. & M. on the cargo. The cargo
was seized under the process, and was
claimed by the C. S. Co., but the only
answer put in, was one by E. & M.:

Held. That the practice was irregu.
lar, but the irregularity would not be
noticed, as no objection had been taken
to it. Conley v. The Freight of the G.
C. Burras,

12

1. On the petition and schedules of one
member of a copartnership, an adjudi- 6.
cation of bankruptcy of the firm was
made. It appeared that neither of the
other members of the firm had con-
sented to the adjudication of bank-
ruptcy, and that they had no place of
business within, and resided out of,
the District where the petition was
filed:

Held, That the adjudication as to
the other members of the firm was er-
roneous, as the Court was without
jurisdiction as against them, and that
as to them such adjudication must be
vacated, but should be allowed to

150

A suit for assault and battery, having
been commenced against the bank-
rupts prior to the commencement of
the proceedings in bankruptcy, was
continued to judgment before the ad-
judication, no leave of the bankruptcy
Court having been obtained:

Held. That, as the claim was not
provable until the judgment was ob-
tained, it was not necessary to obtain
such leave.

ld.

On the petition of a creditor, showing
that he and the assignee objected to
the claim of B., another creditor, an
order was made referring it to a ref
eree to examine into the facts. Before
any evidence was taken before the
referee, the assignee appeared before
the referee and objected to the pro-
ceedings, on the ground that, since
the assignee was elected, B. had made
proof of his claim in form satisfactory
to the register, and that the proof had
been delivered to the assignee, and
registered by him, and that, since the
election of the assignee, the petition

7. If a trustee, who has been appointed
under the 43d section of the bank-
ruptcy Act, call a second general meet-
ing of the creditors, the fees of the
register incident to such meeting are
not chargeable against the estate.
Hinsdale & Dougherty's Case, 231

8. A petition in involuntary bankruptcy
was filed against a firm, an injunction
preventing them from parting with
any of their property was issued, and
a warrant of arrest under the 40th
section of the Act was issued against
one of the firm. The bankrupts em-
ployed attorneys, who applied for a
discharge of the arrest, and attended
on a reference to ascertain the facts,
which resulted in the discharge of the
warrant. An adjudication being had,
the attorneys prepared the schedule
and inventory required by the 41st
section. Thereafter they applied by
petition to be paid for such services
out of the estate:

Held, That, under the circumstances,
a moderate compensation for such serv-
ices would be allowed them.

The proper practice, in such a case,
is for the bankrupts to apply to the
Court in the first instance for leave to
employ counsel. Mansfield's Case, 284

9. Where an order for the examination
of a bankrupt is issued at the instance
of a creditor who has duly proved his
debt, the bankrupt cannot refuse to be
sworn under the order, by reason of
his claiming that he has an offset
which extinguishes the creditor's debt,
and desires to file a petition for the re-
examination of the claim. Kingsley's
Case,

300

10. A bankrupt's petition, which was
filed in February, 1868, alleged only
that he "had a place of business in
New York." In February, 1873, he

asked to file an amended petition, in
which the words, "and has there car-
ried on business of his own," were
added:

Held, That the amendment could not
be allowed, but that the application
to amend might be renewed, on an af-
fidavit showing the facts and the
reasons why the amendment was not
asked for sooner. Wood's Case, 339

11. N., having borrowed money of his
mother-in-law, gave her his notes for
it, and, as security for them, procured
a policy of insurance on his life to
the amount of $4,000, for her benefit,
and paid the premiums on it up to the
date of his bankruptcy. On a sur-
render of the policy, she would be
entitled, in its stead, to a paid up
policy for $158. The cash value of
the policy, at the date of the bank-
ruptcy, if surrendered, was $13 13.
The mother-in-law proved her debt,
to the amount of $3,450, setting forth
the security:

Held, That, in order to ascertain the
amount on which she was entitled to
dividends from the estate, the cash
value of the policy, if surrendered,
viz., $13 13, should be deducted from
the amount of the debt, as proved.
Newland's Case,

342

12. A firm was adjudged bankrupt, on
petition of creditors, without oppo-
sition, the warrant was delivered to
the marshal, a meeting of creditors
was held, and an assignee chosen, who
entered on his duties. Thereafter,
one of the creditors applied to set
aside all the proceedings as irregular,
under the 16th General Order, because
he had, previous to the filing of this
petition against the bankrupts, filed a
petition against them in another Dis-
trict;

Held, That the proceedings in this
Court were regular, notwithstanding
the prior filing of the other petition,
and that there was no ground for set-
ting them aside. Harris & Co.'s Case,

375

13. In a proceeding in involuntary
bankruptcy, the marshal returned to
the warrant that he had sent notices
to the creditors named on a schedule
delivered to him by the attorney for
the petitioning creditor:

the

$7,500 per annum, payable monthly.
On the 1st of May, 1872, they owed
$1,875 for the rent, and the landlord
commenced proceedings to dispossess
them. On the 6th of May a petition
in involuntary bankruptcy against M.,
B. & C. was filed, and an injunction
was issued restraining the debtors and
all other persons from interfering with
the debtors' property, which was
served on the landlord. A warrant
of dispossession was issued in those
proceedings, but was not executed,
and on the 20th of May a formal in-
junction was served on the landlord,
ordering him to refrain from any in-
terference with the property of the
bankrupts, except to preserve the
same. The marshal, on May 6th, took
possession, under the warrant, of the
bankrupts' stock of goods, on
premises in question. On May 22d,
1872, the landlord applied to the
bankruptcy Court for a modification
of the injunction, so as to allow of the
execution of the warrant of disposses-
sion. The application was denied.
No application was made to the Court
to order the removal of the goods from
the premises, but the marshal was ap
plied to to give up the premises, and
also to pay rent, but he refused to
do either. He remained in possession
of the premises till December 13th,
1872. The landlord now applied to
be paid rent of the premises at the
rate of $7,500 for the whole period,
stating that he had had an offer of
that sum for the premises, for the
unexpired term of the lease, and that
the premises were worth that sum :

Held, That the landlord was not en-
titled to claim rent at the rate of
$7,500 for the period, but was entitled
to a reasonable compensation for the
use and occupation of the premises.
Metz's Case,

See BANKRUPTCY, 18.
MORTGAGE, 2.

571

RENT.

The firm of M., B. & C. hired prem
ises in New York city, at a rent of

S

SALE OF CARGO.

See BILL OF LADING, 2.

CHARTER.

SALVAGE.

1. The ship P. fell in with the brig M.
about 175 miles from New York. The
brig had lost her masts, but had rig-
ged jury masts, and was making pro-
gress towards New York, her destina-
tion. The P. took her in tow and
towed her till near Sandy Hook, when
a tug took her to New York, where
she arrived five days after she was
taken in tow. Part of her chain hav-
ing been left on board of the P., was
demanded of her, but the master of
the P. refused to give it up, saying
they should hold it till the salvage
was settled. The value of the brig,
freight and cargo, was $18,500:

Held, That the service was not tow-
age merely, but salvage; that $2,250
was a proper amount to be awarded,
and that the libellants should not re-
cover costs because of the refusal to
deliver up the chain, such costs to be
paid by the owners, unless the refusal
was shown to have been without the
knowledge of the owners, and, in that
case, by the master. The Minnie
Miller,

117

2. A brig, dismasted and in distress,
was fallen in with at sea, by a pilot
boat. The master of the brig had
been hurt and was confined to his bed.
Her owner was on board. The pilots
boarded her and demanded $5,000, to
tow her into port. This was refused,
and they came down to $2,500, threat-
ening to leave the brig if an agree-
ment to pay that sum was not made.
The master and owner thereupon
agreed to pay them the $2,500, and
the pilot boat took hold of the brig,
and after nine days towing, brought
her in safety into the port of New
York. The brig and her cargo were
worth $3,800.

Held, That, considering the value
of the property, the agreement, under
the circumstances, was an inequitable
one, and would not be enforced;

That $1,500 was as liberal a reward
as could be awarded to the salvors;

That costs would be awarded to
them, because the claimants offered
no particular sum before suit brought.
The Wexford,

119

3. The brig A. came into collision with

Sandy Hook, at night, in a thick fog,
when it was blowing hard. She re-
ceived injuries, which led her master
and crew to think she was about to
sink, and they left her and got on
board the other vessel. The next
morning, about 7 A. M., the fog cleared
off, and the master of the A. saw her
about eleven miles off, but made no
effort to return to her. The bark W.
S., bound to New York, came to the
A., and put on board of her a mate
and one man, who got sail on her, and
proceeded towards New York, taking
a pilot about 10 A. M., and a tug about
11 A. M, which for the agreed sum of
$600, towed the A. to New York,
reaching the dock about 9 P. M. The
A. was worth $3,500, her freight
amounted to $1,500, and her cargo
was worth $25,589, making in all
$30,589. The master of the W. S.
was sailing her under an agreement
with her owners, to make this voyage
on shares, he to navigate her, victual
and man her, and pay half her port
charges, and to receive half the earn-
ings:

Held, That, whether this was strict-
ly a case of derelict or not, it was the
case of a vessel abandoned at sea,
where no evidence was given of an
intention on the part of her master to
return to her, and the awards, which
have been given in cases of derelict,
might well be looked to, as affording
some guide to the judgment;

That $6,000 was a proper sum to be
awarded as salvage, from which should
be deducted the $600 paid to the tug
by the claimants;

That the master, by reason of the
agreement between him and the own-
ers, should receive $500 more than
otherwise would have been his share,
and that the award be apportioned as
follows:

To the Master of the W. S.....$2,300
Owners 46
Mate "

66

66

1,800

800

coal on board of a canal-boat and
against her master, to enforce a lien
for seaman's wages, upon freight
money alleged to be due from E. &
M. on the cargo. It appeared that E.
& M. had chartered the boat of her
master for a specified rate, and that,
before the commencement of the ac-
tion, and without notice of the libel-
lant's demand, they had paid to the
master all the money due from them
under the charter. It also appeared
that the cargo was shipped by the C.
S. Co. under an agreement with E. &
M. for freight payable to E. & M.,
which was due and unpaid at the fil-
ing of the libel:

Held, That it was not necessary to
determine whether the libellant could
maintain an action to charge the
charter money payable by E. & M.
with a lien for wages, as such charter
money had been paid over to the mas-
ter without notice before the com-
mencement of the suit;

That the freight money due from
the C. S. Co. to E. & M. could not be
held, because the libellant had not in
his libel sought to charge it;

That the libellant was entitled to a
decree against the master. Conley v.
The Freight of the G. C. Barras, 12

2. A vessel was run on a reef in a well-
known channel, where there was
plenty of room, and was lost. The
master was a man of experience in the
waters, and accounted for the occur-
rence by his chronometer being
wrong. The sailors brought suit
against the owner of the vessel, to re-
cover wages for the whole voyage,
alleging that the voyage was broken
up by fault of the owner:

Held, That, as it did not appear
that the accident was the result of
negligence, or incompetency of the
master, or that, when the vessel
sailed, the chronometer was not a
proper one in good order, it could
not be held that the voyage was
broken up by fault, fraud or neglect
of the owner. Hill v. Murray,

141

3. A seaman signed articles in New
York, on board a British vessel, for a
voyage to Dunkirk, at $40 a month.
At the time, it was stated to him that
the voyage would end in New York.
On the arrival of the vessel at Dun-
BT. VOL. VI.-39

6.

A seaman, who had shipped in New
York for a voyage to New Orleans
and back, after the vessel had started
on her return voyage from New
Orleans fell from the yard and broke
his arm.
The owners of the steamer
sent him at once to a hospital, paying
his wages till the date of his leaving
the ship, and afterwards brought him
to New York, The seaman having
filed a libel to recover wages for the
rest of the voyage, and damages for
the injury, the owners of the vessel
paid the amount of the wages into
Court, which the libellant drew out.

Held, that the 1:bellant was entitled
to the wages for the rest of the voy-
age, and as there was no proof or
allegation of a tender of the amount,
he was entitled to a decree for his
costs. The Cortes,
288