Blackburn v. The Wellington
Blackburn v. The Wellington
Opinion of the Court
This is an action upon a contract for services rendered the steamer Wellington by the master of the steamer Montserrat. Both vessels were at the time engaged in transporting coal from Departure Bay, in British Columbia, to the port of San Francisco. On the 24th of April last the Wellington sailed from that bay for San Francisco with a cargo of 2,350 tons of coal, and in the morning of the second day after sailing, without any apparent cause, lost all the blades of her propeller. She had not sufficient sail-power to give her master any control over her course, and she was therefore subject to be carried anywhere the currents and winds might take her. At the time of the accident the Wellington was about 72 miles in a south-westerly direction from the mouth of the Columbia river. The next day she encountered a severe gale, lasting about 24 hours, during which she lay in the trough of the sea, with the seas breaking heavily over her fore and aft. After the storm “she continued to drift as carried by the currents, the wind being shifting, the weather unsettled, and the sea a strong north-west swell, hntil about 7 or 8 o’clock in the evening of the 29th of April she -was within 10 or 12 miles of the mouth of the Columbia river, the sea then being comparatively smooth, and the weather moderate. The Columbia river has, at its mouth, a bad bar, which cannot be passed in very bad weather, and is not ordinarily crossed during the night. To the north and south of it, for a number of miles, there is anchorage near the beach, which is fairly good in moderate weather, but which is not safe in case of storms, which might, with reasonable probability, be anticipated at that season of the year. The current at the mouth of the river sots quite strongly to the northward and inshore. There is a light-house there, at which a lookout is kept. The light-house has means of communicating with tugboats in the Columbia river which ordinarily, at night, lay at Astoria, about 15 miles up the river. There were at the time tug-boats in the river with sufficient power to have towed the Wellington into the Columbia river, or to have towed her to San Francisco. The Wellington, at the time of the making of the contract sued on, was within sight of the light-house. While in the position described, the steamer Sussex, bound out from the Columbia river, seeing the Wellington with a signal of distress flying, approached her, sent an officer on board, and offered to tow her to an anchorage near the bar, which she reported as breaking badly, for a salvage compensation. While the officer was on board, the Montserrat came in sight, approached the Wellington, was hailed by her master, who requested the master of the Montserrat to come on board, which he did. The master of the Wellington then asked the master of the Montserrat whether he thought he could tow the Wellington to San Francisco, and the latter replied that he thought he could. The master of the Wellington then dismissed the officer from the Sussex, asking him to report his thanks to his master, but that he did not want the proffered services. That being done, negotiations were opened with the master of the Mont
No one doubts that when the circumstances of a case render such action proper a court of admiralty will refuse to enforce a contract made for salvage services. But is this one of those cases? I canuot see any just ground for holding that the master of the Wellington, in making the contract in question, acted under compulsion or duress, or that any advantage was taken of his unfortunate position by the master of the Montserrat. Nothing could have been fairer than the offer of the master of the Montserrat to perform the service, and let the compensation therefor be fixed on arrival in San Francisco by the owners of the Wellington. Yet that offer was refused by tho master of the Wellington, who, for some reason not apparent, wanted tlie amount to be fixed in advance. There was no compulsion about the case, first, for the reason that the salvor, as just stated, offered to render the service without any contract at all, which oiler was refused by the master of the Wellington. This fact is of itself sufficient to dispose of that objection to the contract made. But it may be added that the Sussex was present, and her officer was, when the negotiation with the master of the Montserrat begun, contending that he, as representative of the Sussex, was entitled to be employed by the master of the Wellington. It is true, the Sussex did not propose
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The Wellington. Blackburn v. The Wellington
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published