1. Salvage. What services are to be deemed salvage services. The Schooner Emulous. 207 2. Principles by which salvage is regulated. Ibid. 3. One eighth allowed under the circumstances. Ibid. 4. In a libel for salvage all the parties should be inserted and brought before the Court. The Schooner Boston. 328 5. In a libel in rem, against a vessel or cargo for salvage, the underwriters, not having accepted an abandonment, are not proper parties. Ibid. 6. Where the master and crew had left their vessel in a sinking condition, and taken to the longboat, and were picked up by another vessel, while yet in sight of the wreck, the vessel and cargo, thus left are considered, in Admiralty, as derelict. Ibid. 7. On appeal in salvage cases, the Court of Appeal does not alter the amount of salvage upon slight grounds, or inconsiderable differences of opinion. Ibid. 8. The right of salvage is forfeited by embezzlement on the part of the salvors, whether in port Ibid. or at sea. 9. Embezzlement by the salvors, after the property is put into the hands of the Marshal, is a forfeiture of salvage; and that, whether the custody of the property be at 10. The case of salvage is an exception to the rule, as to the incompetency of witnesses on account of interest. The salvors are, from necessity, witnesses as to facts occurring at the time of the salvage service; but only as to such facts. Ibid. 11. In a salvage suit in Admiralty the salvors, being parties to the suit, are not competent witnesses as to facts occurring in port after the property is brought in. Ibid. 12. Underwriters cannot make any claim for salvage property in the Admiralty, unless there has been an abandonment of the property to them, and it has been accepted by them. The Ship Henry Ewbank. 400 13. In salvage cases the proper course is to make all the cosalvors parties to the original libel. And if any are omitted, they need not file a new libel, where the property has been already taken possession of, and is in the custody of the court under process. But they may bring forward their claims by a suitable allegation; and thus make themselves parties to the cause, without the formality of notice or process to the other parties. Where different libels are filed by co-salvors unnecessarily, it is at the peril of paying costs. Ibid. 14. In cases of derelict the habit of Courts of Admiralty is to allow one moiety as salvage. That proportion is not departed from unless under extraordinary circumstanIbid. ces. 15. If salvors, in effecting a salvage service, themselves fall into distress, and are relieved by other salvors, they do not lose their original right to salvage; but the second salvors only partake in the salvage according to their merit. Second salvors cannot lawfully make it a condition of giving as sistance, that the original salvors shall abandon all claims to salvage. Ibid. 16. An appeal by any parties interested in the distribution of salvage, as to their shares, brings up incidentally a review of the whole decree, so far as the distribution is concerned. Ibid. 17. In the distribution of salvage, the owner of the salvor ship ought under ordinary circumstances to be allowed one third of the salvage. In cases of extraordinary merit, or extraordinary peril to the ship, he may found a claim to higher salvage. Ibid. 18. Rule of apportionment between the master, officers, and crew; and between co-salvors. SEAMAN. 1. A seaman, whose feet are frozen while in the ship's boat in the service of the ship, before he is discharged from the ship on the return voyage, at the home port, is entitled to be cured at the ship's expense; and it is a charge on the ship. Reed v. Canfield. 194 2. Quære, how it would be in a case of extraordinary service to the ship, in the nature of a salvage service. Would it be a general average? Ibid. See SHIPPING, 2. SEPARATION OF MAINE AND MASSACHUSETTS. See BOWDOIN College, 25. mate; but may sue in the Admiralty for his wages. The Brig George. 150 2. He is also entitled to be cured at the expense of the ship, in the same manner, as a seaman. And, therefore, if he is put on shore from sickness for the convenience of the ship, his expenses for medicines, advice, attendance, and board, are to be borne by the ship-owner. Ibid. 3. It seems, that the like rule applies to a master. Ibid. 4. Indictment for maliciously and without justifiable cause forcing a seaman on shore, in a foreign port, against the Crimes Act of 1825, ch. 276, § 10. “ Maliciously," in the Statute, means wilfully, against a knowledge of duty. "Justifiable cause," does not mean such a cause, as in the mere Maritime Law might authorize a discharge; but such a cause as the known policy of the American Laws on this subject contemplate, as a case of moral necessity, for the safety of the ship and crew, or the due performance of the voyage. United States v. Coffin. 394 5. Where the master directed one of his crew to be punished for gross misbehaviour, and the crew interposed and prevented the infliction of the punishment; compelling the master, by acts of violence and intimidation, to desist therefrom; held, to be an endeavour to commit a revolt within the Act of Congress of 1790, ch. 36, [9,] § 12. United States v. Morrison. 448 6. Neither a previous deliberate combination for mutual aid and encouragement, nor any preconcerted plan is necessary to bring it within the Act. Ibid. 7. Desertion during the voyage is by the Maritime Law a forfeiture of all wages antecedently due. But a desertion, to work this effect, must be, not merely an absence without leave, or in disobe dience of orders, but animo non revertendi, an intention to abandon the ship and the service. Cloutman v. Tunison. 373 8. If after desertion a seaman offer to return to duty in a reasonable time, and offer amends, and repent of the offence, the master is bound to receive him back, as a case fit for condonation, unless his previous misconduct would justify a discharge. Ibid. 9. By the Act of 1790, ch. 56, [29,] a statute desertion and forfeiture of wages are created by forty-eight hours' absence without leave, if a proper entry be made, on the day of the absence, in the log-book. Ibid. 10. The effect of this provision is, that the absence for such a period is deemed conclusive evidence of desertion; whereas in the Maritime Law it would only afford a presumption of desertion. Ibid. 11. The due entry in the logbook is indispensable to inflict the statute forfeiture. If not made on the very day of the absence, there can be no forfeiture inflicted. Ibid. 12. Desertion, to bring after it the forfeiture of wages, either by the Maritime Law or by the Statute, must be during the voyage, and before it is ended. Ibid. 13. The voyage is ended, when the ship has arrived at her proper port of destination, and is moored in safety in the accustomed place, although her cargo is not unlivered. Ibid. 14. Officers and seamen are bound to remain by the ship, and unliver the cargo. If they do not, they are liable for damages and a compensation to the owner. Ibid. 15. A forfeiture of two months' pay, deducted for absence of a second mate without leave, during unlivery of the ship, under the circumstances. Ibid. 16. In an indictment, founded on the Crimes Act of 1790, ch. 36, § 12, for an endeavour to commit a revolt, and for confining the master of the ship on the high seas, it is not necessary to allege, that the master was at the time in the peace of the United States, or that he was an American citizen. United States v. Thompson. 168 17. A cooper of the ship is a seaman within the provisions of the Act. Ibid. 18. The jurisdiction to try the offence attaches under the 8th section of the Act of 1790, ch. 36, to the District into which the offender is first brought, or in which he is apprehended, in the alternative. So that the trial may be in either District. Ibid. 19. An endeavour to commit a revolt may be complete, as an offence within the Act, by stirring up, or encouraging, or combining with any others of the crew to produce a disobedience to any one lawful order of the master or offiIbid. cers. 20. A confinement of the master may be complete within the Act, by any moral, as well as by a physical restraint of the master, which prevents his free movements and command of the ship. But it must in either case be an illegal restraint; for it is not an offence for the seamen to confine the master for a justifiable cause, or in justifiable self-defence. Ibid. 21. In a suit for wages, or for a share in a whaling voyage, if the defence sets up misconduct, there must be a special allegation of the facts, with due certainty of time, place, and other circumstances; otherwise the Court will reject it. Loose allegations of general misconduct are insufficient. Macomber v. Thompson. 384 22. Damages can be recovered for the misconduct of a seaman, only when they are the direct and immediate result of his acts or omissions, not when they are remote and contingent; Causa proxima non remota spectatur. Ibid. STOCK OF THE UNITED 1. A, owning certain five per cent. stock of the United States, borrowed $1960 of B on a note payable in four months, and made an assignment of the stock, with a power of attorney to transfer it on the books of the bank, and delivered the certificate of the stock to B, who was to sell the stock, if the debt was not paid when due. A died before the note became due, insolvent and indebted to the United States, who claimed a priority of payment. The stock was never transferred on the public books during A's lifetime. After his death his administrator sold the stock, and applied the proceeds to the payment of B's debt. It was held, that B took an equitable interest by the assignment in the stock, notwithstanding the Act of 1790, ch. 61, [34,] had declared, that transfers should be made only on the books of the government by the party in person, or by his attorney, and that the payment by the administrator was not a misapplication of the assets. 133 United States v. Cutts. 2. The Act of 1790, ch. 61, [34,] did not intend to interfere with, or prohibit, equitable titles or claims on stock; but only to fix the legal title between the government and the holder. Ibid. 3. Stock held by a trustee, (and the holder after an assignment is a mere trustee,) is not assets in the hands of his administrator or Ibid. assignees. SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. 1803, ch. 93. Appeal, SUPPLIES. SUPPLEMENTAL LIBEL. See ADMIRALTY, 5. See MATERIAL-MEN, 1, 2, 3. SURPRISE. See INJUNCTIon, 1. PRACTICE, 1. TENANT BY CURTESY. See CURTESY. TENANT IN COMMON. See JOINT TENANTS, 1. PARTNERSHIP, 4. TENURE OF OFFICE. TITLE. See EQUITY, 10. JURISDICTION, 6. TRADE. See COD FISHERY, 3. TRUSTEE PROCESS. See FOREIGN ATTACHMENT. TRUSTS. 1. Rules as to the creation of resulting trusts. Hoxie v. Carr. 173 2. Semble, that the exception in the Statute of Frauds in England and Massachusetts, as to resulting trusts, is merely affirmative of the general law, and does not create a saving of resulting trusts, which would otherwise have been cut off, unless in writing. Accordingly, in Rhode Island, where the Statute of Frauds contains no such exception, resulting trusts are on the same footing as in England and Massachusetts. Ibid. 3. In Maine, a husband is entitled to hold a trust estate of his wife, as tenant by the curtesy. Robinson v. Codman. 128 4. Where the legal estate and the trust estate are co-extensive, (as in fee,) and both become vested in the same person, there is a merger of the trust estate in the legal estate. Ibid. 121 5. An administrator has no authority to sell an estate held by his intestate in trust for other persons, as assets to pay the debts of the intestate. VOL. VI. Ibid. 78 1. Where the Legislature by a special act authorizes a street or highway to be laid out and bars any action for possession or damages after the laying out, and provides for the damages in a special manner, the owner is still entitled to the fee, subject to the easement. United States v. Harris. 21 2. Such special acts are to be construed in conformity to the general highway acts, unless the Legislature use words, which show, that the fee of the lands taken is intended to pass from the |