124 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XV. TORONTO ADMIRALTY DISTRICT. 1914 • THE PENINSULAR TUG & TOW— ING COMPANY, LIMITED PLAINTIFFS. May 12. AGAINST THE SCHOONER STEPHIE. Shipping—Salvage—Relative Liability of Ship and Cargo—Specific Agreement Where no specific ag reement is made for a sum certain, the rule in a salva ge action is that the interests in the ship and car g o are only severally liable, each for its proportionate share of the salva g e remuneration. The Mary Pleasants (1857) Swab. 224 ; The Pyrennee (1863) Br. & L. 189; The Raisby (1885) 10 P.D. 114, referred to. A CTION in rem for salvage services. The case was tried at Sarnia before the Honourable Mr. Justice Hodgins, Deputy Local Judge of the Toronto Admiralty District, on the 4th day of May, A.D., 1914. The facts appear in the reasons for judgment. R. V. LeSueur, for the plaintiffs. F. F. Pardee, K.C., for the ship. HODGINS, D. Lo. J., now (May 12, 1914) delivered judgment. It is admitted that the services were actually rendered,. and that the amount charged therefor, $1,080.63, is reasonable. The sole question is whether the ship is liable for the whole amount or only for her proportion, having regard to the fact that the salvage preserved. the cargo and enabled the ship to earn the freight. This depends upon whether there was an agreement for a ssdcific sum or whether the ship merely accepted. the services of the salving vessel.
VOL. XV:] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. No evidence was given that any sum had been agreed upon. The bargain, whatever it was, was made not by the master or owner, but by Lomer, acting for the insurers of the cargo, and no details of it were vouchsafed at the trial. The ship therefore cannot be made liable as upon any express contract by its owner or master. The Heinrich. (2) The rule where no specific agreement is made for a sum certain is that the interests in the ship and cargo are only severally liable, each for its proportionate share of the salvage remuneration. $ee the Pleasants (3) (1857) The Pyrennee (5). The values given for the ship and cargo at the trial were. $2000 and $12,000 respectively' and the freight earned and paid is agreed by the parties Upon that basis the plaintiffs will be entitled to judgment for proportion of their claim based on a valuation of the vessel and freight at $2,661.93, as against the value of the cargo at $12,000; in other words, to judgment for $240.00. As the importance of the exact values of vessel and cargo were probably not, in this view, present to the minds 'of counsel, either party may apply to me on affidavit to vary them before the 18th of May. The plaintiffs should have their costs of action and will be entitled to a like proportionate part of them from the cargo on the adjustment under the general .average bond. (1) (1887) 8 Asp. M.L.C. 151. (2) (1888) 13 P.D. 31. • (5) (1885) 10 P.D. 114. ' i25 1 914 THE PEN NSULAR TUG Tô A c o. v. THE SCHOONER STEPHIE. Reasons for Cumbrian (1); the Prinz Judgment, Mary (4) The Raisby tô be $661,93. Judgment accordingly. (3) (1857) Swab. 224. (4) (1863) Br. & L.•189.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.