Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/941

 926 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the Bramell and Forest City to aid in saving the Terry firtt still I cannot perceive how that could afifect the respondents inju- riously, or why it should be a cause for diminishing the salvage com- pensation; and even if that purpose were conclusively proven, it could not legally be considered in awarding salvage remuneration. The court, in the case presented here, will look only, at the services rendered to the Terry and cargo, and to the towing away of the Wheeless by the Bramell. If they performed salvage service for these tug-boats they have their remedy over, provided they possessed a valid, legal, and aubsisting claim. In the case of Le Tigre, e Wash, 567, Mr. Justice Washington said: �" The owner whose property has been preaerved from destruction by acts of a stranger, bas no right to inquire into the motives which influenced uis eonduct, provided heacted legally." �The libellants and intervenor claim half, or at least a third, of the value of the salved property as a reward for their services. In Bngland, the ancient rule alloting a moiety in derelict cases obtained up to the latter part of the reign of Charles II; then the admiralty courts changed the proportion, and so far relaxed the rule as to give a third in cases involving no great danger; and in those attended with extra- ordinary peril a moiety was still awarded. In the early part of the last century the correctness of a rule of uxed proportions began to be questioned, then discountenanced, and at length abandoned, and a flexible and more salutary rule was declared by the British admiralty tribunals; and, subsequently, (after much diversity of opinion in the federal courts,) the modern Bnglish rule was approved and adopted in this country by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Postr. Jones, 19 How. 150. �In the case of The Thetis, 3 Hagg. 14, the court said:> �"Ail claims of specifie proportions, and particularly the distinction of derelict, have been discountenanced, and may be said, indeed, never to have existed in modern times. * * * lu cases of extreme hazard, one-third of the value, or one-fourth, or one-sixth, ou one-ninth, or a sum of money only on account of salvage is given." �In Post V. Jones, supra, the court, by Mr. Justice Grier, said: �" Tho case before us is properly one of derelict. In such cases it has been frequontly asserted, as a general rule, that the compensation should not be more than half, nor less tlian a third, of the property saved. But we agree ��� �