SALVAGE-RESCUE. John Christian Brevoor, master, and John Schier, seaman. versus The ship Fair American, and DECREE. THIS is a case of capture by a French privateer called L'Enfant de la Grande Revenche, of the ship, in the libel mentioned, and her cargo, and a recapture, from a prize-master and eight privateersmen, by the libellants, assisted by a certain Anthony Fachtman, the cook of the Fair American.* The capture, recapture, and bringing into *The libel states, that the ship Fair American, Brevoor, master, bound from Philadelphia to Havanna, was taken on the 8th day of October, 1798, by a French privateer, called, L'Enfant de la Grande Revanche. The officers and crew of the Fair American, with the exception of the libellants, John Christian Brevoor, and John Schier, and Anthony Fachtman, cook, of the Fair American, were taken on board the privateer, and a prizemaster, six white men and two negroes, were placed in the Fair American, and her course altered, for Cape Francois. On the 16th day of October, the libellants rose on the prizemaster, and the French crew, recaptured the Fair American, and on the 26th day of October, arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, with the said ship, having the French prize-master, &c. prisoners. The libel also states, that the ship Fair American was valued at Charleston, at thirty thousand one hundred dollars, and the cargo, at twenty-five thousand one hundred dollars, and that the SALVAGE-RESCUE. VS. the ship Fair Brevoor et al. Charleston, are agreed in the proceedings, on both sides. The counsel for the respondents have done American. their clients ample justice, in objecting to evidence of facts, and the law arising upon them. But there is cargo has been sold or disposed of, so that no process out of the admiralty court can be issued against the same. The libel, therefore, prays process against the ship, and that the owners of the cargo, Stephen Dutilh and John Gourjon may be summoned, and be obliged to pay, a reasonable salvage to the libellants. 10th January, 1800. J. INGERSOLL, The separate answer of Stephen Dutilh, admits the arrival in Charleston, and the value of the ship and cargo, and that the cargo was disposed of in Charleston; but prays that the circumstances of the recapture of the Fair American be verified. That after information of the arrival of the Fair American at Charleston was received, application was made by the respondent to the Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, for a reasonable reward to the libellants for their services and exertions, and one thousand dollars were ordered by the Insurance Company, to be paid to the salvors. The answer also states, that the Fair American and her cargo, were abandoned to the underwriters, and were afterwards disposed of for their account, and for a less sum than that which is stated in the libel, that Stephen Dutilh became the purchaser of the ship, and that she had performed a voyage from Charleston to Hamburg, and back to Philadelphia, since the recapture, and before the filing of the libel. The answer prays that the libel be dismissed, so far as regards the ship Fair American, and the respondent, with costs, &c. RAWLE, proctor. 21st January, 1800. SALVAGE-RESCUE. sufficient evidence, legally admissible in such cases, to satisfy me, that this is a case of extraordinary merit, in which great gallantry and good conduct, The separate answer of John Gourjon, admits the sailing of the ship Fair American from Philadelphia for Havanna, and her arrival at Charleston, having goods on board, belonging to the respondent, amounting, per invoice, to $12,973; but, whether she was taken by a French privateer, and afterwards retaken by the libellants, are not admitted. The respondent states, that the ship Fair American arrived in Charleston, where a part of the goods were delivered to, and sold by, an agent for the concerned, employed by the libellant, Brevoor; but that a part of the goods, amounting, per invoice, to $2319 were embezzled, or otherwise lost, since the alleged recapture, by default of the libellants, or one of them. That the goods sold at Charleston, produced a less sum than their invoice cost. The respondent further says, that previous to the filing of the libel, the underwriters on the goods, directed the sum of $9035 to be given to the salvors, for their exertions and services, which sum was offered to the salvors, and will be paid to them at any time. The respondent further states, that he abandoned his interest in the cargo of the Fair American to the underwriters, who paid him the sum of $15,822, the amount of their subscriptions, deducting charges; and that the goods were sold on account of the underwriters, and with the consent of captain Brevoor, one of the libellants, without any claim or process ágainst the same for salvage. As to the residue of the libel, praying process against the person of the respondent, in order to compel him to pay salvage, the answer states, that the court ought not to have cognizance of the said plea as affecting the person of the respondent, the court having no jurisdiction thereof, and therefore it is prayed that the court will not proceed further therein, and that the same be dismissed with costs, &c. 18th July, 1800. MOYLAN, proctor. N SALVAGE-RESCUE. VS. Brevoor et al. as well as labour and suffering, were exhibited and the ship Fair endured. I leave the details of the case to be colAmerican. lected from the proceedings, the exhibits and such parts of the evidence of facts, as I shall notice, in my observations hereafter. I have fully discussed the general principles of the law, on the subject of salvage, in former decrees.* It is not given as a mere compensation, * See the case of Warder et al. vs. Goods saved from the Belle Creole, and the case of Taylor et al. vs. Goods saved from the Cato, ante. The replication states, that the libellants are ready to verify the facts stated in their libel, by proof; and that it is true that the sum of $1000 was distributed among them by the agents of the respondent, S. Dutilh, the same having been allowed to them by the Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, but that the same was paid to them on the eve of their departure from Charleston, and when they had not an opportunity to protest against the same being received by them in full satisfaction of salvage for the ship, and the part of the cargo belonging to S. Dutilh; but that the respondents never did consent to receive the same, in full satisfaction of salvage. 100 And that the sum of $903,55 was offered to them by the underwriters, on the goods belonging to John Gourjon, in satisfaction of their claim for salvage, which was refused by them, as insufficient. The replication further states, that although no proceedings had been instituted by the libellants before the filing of their libel, yet they have never abandoned or renounced their claim to salvage. It further states that the libellants have no knowledge of the embezzlement, alleged to have been committed, or of any persons who were concerned in the same, protesting that they, the libellants, were not guilty thereof. 22d July, 1800. The depositions confirm the statements contained in the libel, and establish the facts alleged in the replication.-E. SALVAGE-RESCUE. for labour and service. It is increased, far beyond this claim, as an incentive and premium, to stimulate others to meritorious and gallant exertions. I lament that these principles are not better understood, among our merchants. They would then, by more liberal allowances to salvors, preclude the necessity of legal adjudications; which create much expense, and seldom give satisfaction. But I am compelled to disregard all considerations, but those of my public duty, and sense of legal obligation and justice. The points made in this cause by the respon- Points made dent's counsel, were chiefly these following by the respon dents. of the court 1. The jurisdiction of this court is only in rem-1.Jurisdiction. a delivery of the ship and goods saved, having been of admiralty made to the owners, the lien of the recaptors is only in rem. destroyed; and with it, their right to salvage; which grows out of, and is attached inseparably to, the articles saved. It is therefore, not a personal demand. 2. The possession of the ship by Brevoor, is not such as to preserve his lien-He held it in a new capacity-He had parted with his possession, as recaptor, when he engaged as master, after the resale to Dutilh. 2. Lien lost, with posses by parting sion. 3. Compensation for salvage, has been made 3. Compensa and accepted. tion has been made. ment. 4. There has been an embezzlement of part of 4. Embezzle. Mr. Gourjon's goods, and Brevoor is responsible. The amount of embezzlement, overbalances any reasonable reward for salvage. As to the jurisdiction of this court, in cases of salvage on the sea, if it were necessary to determine that point, I should be much disposed to say, it |