Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/248

 240 FEDERAL REPORTER. �edge of its existence is presumed. As before remarked, the question bas escaped the federal courts except in the single instance of The Milwaukee Belle, 2 Biss. 197. Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 105, turned on a different point. The suit was for non-deliyery of marchandise, carried on deck by con- tract. Being lost by peril of the sea, for loss by jettison is sueh, without fault of bhe vessel, it was not responsable for non-delivery. Had the claim been for contribution a different case -would have been presented. Some observations are made by the court on the general subject of contribution for jettison, but the citations show that the particular aspect of the subject now under cousideration was not in mind. The court was indeed careful to distinguish the daim before it from one for contribution, saying that the libellant's "right to contribution is not involvei in the case." �The Milwaukee Belle was decided by the district court for the eastern district of lowa. The claim was against the vessel for contribution. The goods jettisoned from the deck had been placed there under a contract with the owner of the vessel, made at his instance and for his special benefit. The court dismissed the libel, relying on Lawrence v. Minturn for doing so. It is submitted, with great respect and deference for the judgment of the court, that the review of this subject already made shows that this decision cannot be followed consistently with the well established doctrine abroad, or the weight of authority at home. �The question in the federal courts must be regarded as still open, and it may well be regretted that this case cannotreach the supreme court, and the danger of conflicting decisions and confusion, res|)ecting a subject of so much importance, be avoided. In my judgment the rule,. with its exceptions as established abroad, is wise and just, and I am unable to see any good reason why we should not follow it. The impor- tance of uniformity in commercial and maritime laws and usages throughout the.world cannot be disregarded inconsid* ering the question., ... �Does the case in hand fall within either of the exceptions ? The only one tiie libellant can invoke is that which resta on ��� �