Opinion of the Court. Neither of the grounds assigned will justify this court in reversing the decree. If the fire, which had made such headway as to wholly consume the two coils of tarred rope and the spare sail, and to partly destroy three bales of the cotton stowed in the poop, had not been promptly discovered and extinguished, there was imminent danger that it would extend to the rest of that cotton, and, fanned by the stiff breeze which was blowing lengthwise of the ship, destroy or greatly damage the ship and the whole cargo. Saving a ship from imminent danger of destruction by fire is as much a salvage service as saving her from the perils of the seas. The Blackwell, 10 Wall. 1. The shortness of the time occupied in rescuing the ship from danger does not lessen the merit of the service. The General Palmer, 5 Notes of Cases, 159, note; The Syrian, 2 Marit. Law Cas. 387; Sonderburg v. Ocean Towboat Company, 3 Woods, 146. The danger being real and imminent, it is not necessary, in order to make out a salvage service, that escape by other means should be impossible. Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 1, 42. The fact that no serious risk was incurred on the part of the salvors does not change the nature of the service, although an important element in estimating its merit and the amount of the reward. As has been well said by Mr. Justice Curtis, "The relief of property from an impending peril of the sea, by the voluntary exertions of those who are under no legal obligation to render assistance, and the consequent ultimate safety of the property, constitute a case of salvage. It may be a case of more or less merit, according to the degree of peril in which the property was, and the danger and difficulty of relieving it. But these circumstances affect the degree of the service, not its nature." The Alphonso, 1 Curtis, 376, 378. The contract of the towboat and her officers and crew was to tow the ship, and did not include the rendering of any sal vage service, by putting out fire or otherwise. Such a service, which, by the use of the steam pump and engine of the towboat, rescued the ship from an unforeseen and extraordinary peril, gave the owner as well as the officers and crew of the Opinion of the Court. towboat a right to salvage. The William Brandt, Jr., 2 Note of Cases, Supplement, lxvii.; The Saratoga, Lush. 318; The Minnehaha, 15 Moore P. C. 133; S. C. Lush. 335; The Annapolis, Lush. 355, 361, 372. And no doubt is or could be raised as to the right of the passengers on the towboat, whose exertions contributed to putting out the fire, to share in the salvage awarded to her officers and crew. The Cora, 2 Pet. Adm. 361; S. C. 2 Wash. C. C. 80; The Hope, 3 Hagg. Adm. 423. Evers, the passenger on the Connemara, was also entitled to share in the salvage. A passenger cannot indeed recover salvage for every service which would support a claim by one in no wise connected with the ship. In the case of a common danger, it is the duty of every one on board the ship to give every assistance he can, by the use of all ordinary means in working and pumping the ship, to avert the danger. Yet a passenger is not, as the officers and crew are, bound to stand by the ship to the last; he may leave her at any time and seek his own safety; and for extraordinary services, and the use of extraordinary means, not furnished by the equipment of the ship herself, by which she is saved from imminent danger, he may have salvage. Newman v. Walters, 3 B. & P. 612; The Branston, 2 Hagg. Adm. 3, note; The Salacia, 2 Hagg. Adm. 262, 269; The Vrede, Lush. 322; The Pontiac, 5 McLean, 359, 363; The Great Eastern, 2 Marit. Law Cas. 148; S. C. 11 Law Times (N. S.), 516; The Stella Marie, Young's Adm. 16; 3 Kent Com. 246. The services of Evers were of peculiar value, and involved the use of means outside the ship. His promptness and vigilance gave the alarm, which, by the supineness and neglect of the officers and crew of the ship, might not otherwise have been given in time to save her. This might not of itself have entitled him to reward; but beyond this he exerted himself, as if he had been one of the officers and crew of the towboat, in the use of the steam pump and hose on board of her, by which the fire on the ship was effectually subdued. It may also be observed that this case comes before us on the appeal of the owners of the ship; and that there is no controversy, either between Evers and the other salvors, or between Opinion of the Court. the salvors who gave their personal exertions and the owners of the towboat whose machinery was used, as to the distribution of the salvage. The services performed being salvage services, the amount of salvage to be awarded, although stated by the circuit court in the form of a conclusion of law, is largely a matter of fact and discretion, which cannot be reduced to precise rules, but depends upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each case. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240, 267; The Adventure, 8 Cranch, 221, 228; The Emulous, 1 Sumner, 207, 213; The Cora, above cited; Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150, 161. In The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, Chief Justice Marshall said: "It is almost impossible that different minds contemplating the same subject, should not form different conclusions as to the amount of salvage to be decreed and the mode of distribution." And by the uniform course of decision in this court, during the period in which it had full jurisdiction to reverse decrees in admiralty upon both facts and law, as well as in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England, exercising a like jurisdiction, the amount decreed below was never reduced, unless for some violation of just principles, or for clear and palpable mistake or gross over-allowance. Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108, 119; The Comanche, 8 Wall. 448, 479; The Neptune, 12 Moore P. C. 346; The Carrier Dove, 2 Moore P. C. (N. S.) 243; S. C. Brown. & Lush. 113; The Fusilier, 3 Moore P. C. (N. S.) 51; S. C. Brown. & Lush. 341. By the act of Congress of 16th February, 1875, c. 77, the appellate power of this court is restricted within narrower bounds; its authority to revise any decree in admiralty of the circuit court is limited to questions of law; and the finding of facts by that court is equivalent to a special verdict, or to facts found by the court in an action at law when a trial by jury is waived. The Abbottsford, 98 U. S. 440; The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381; Sun Insurance Company v. Ocean Insurance Company, 107 U. S. 485. The effect of this change may be illustrated by referring to Opinion of the Court. the revisory power of the courts in actions at law tried by a jury. The facts are decided by the jury in the first instance. If the jury return a general verdict, clearly against the weight of evidence, or assessing exorbitant damages, the court in which the trial is had may set aside the verdict and order a new trial. But a court of error, to which the case is brought by bill of exceptions or appeal on matter of law only, cannot set aside the verdict, unless there is no evidence from which the conclusion of fact can be legally inferred. Parks v. Ross, 11 How. 362; Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359. Before the act of 1875, this court, upon an appeal in case of salvage, gave the same weight, and no more, to the decree of the court below, that a court of common law would allow to the verdict of a jury; and might revise that decree for manifest error in matter of fact, even if no violation of the just principles which should govern the subject was shown. Post v. Jones, 19 How. 150, 160. Since the act of 1875, in cases of salvage, as in other admiralty cases, this court may revise the decree appealed from for matter of law, but for matter of law only; and should not alter the decree for the reason that the amount awarded appears to be too large, unless the excess is so great that, upon any reasonable view of the facts found, the award cannot be justified by the rules of law applicable to the case. In the present case, a vessel and cargo of great value were rescued from imminent danger by the energetic efforts of the salvors; and the amount of salvage awarded is less than onesixteenth of the value of the property saved. Although upon the circumstances of the case, so far as they can be brought before us by the summary of them in the findings of facts by the circuit court, we might have been better satisfied with an award of a smaller proportion, we cannot say that the amount awarded is so excessive as to violate any rule of law. Decree affirmed. Statement of Facts. ADRIATIC FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE Decided April 30th, 1883. Contract. Several insurance companies having policies on the same property agreed together to defend against claims for insurance, by a written instrument of which the following is the material part: the said companies will unite in resisting the claim made upon said policies, and on each thereof, and in the defence of any and all suits and legal proceedings that have been or may be instituted against any of said companies upon any of said policies, and will, when and as required by the committee hereinafter mentioned, contribute to and pay the costs, fees, and expenses of said suits and proceedings pro rata; that is to say, each company shall pay such proportion of said costs, fees, and expenses as the amount insured by said company shall bear to the whole amount insured on said property by all the companies subscribing to this agreement. The management and conduct of said resistance to said claims and defence of said suits and proceedings shall be and is fully entrusted to and devolved upon a committee to be composed of W. H. Brazier and James R. Lott, of the city of New York, Charles W. Sproat, of the city of Boston, L. S. Jordan, of the city of Boston, which committee shall have full power and authority to employ counsel and attorneys to appear for said companies and each thereof, and defend said suits and legal proceedings, and to employ other persons for other services relative thereto, and to assess upon and demand and receive from such companies, from time to time, as such committee shall deem proper, such sum or sums of money for the compensation of such counsel and attorneys, and such other persons, and all other expenses of such defence of said suits as said committee shall deem necessary and expedient; such assessment upon and payment by each of said companies to be pro rata, as above mentioned. The committee named in the agreement communicated it to the defendant in error, and employed him as counsel in resisting the suits. On a suit for professional service brought by him against the companies jointly: Held, That any contract there may have been between him and the companies was several not joint. Action by defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, to recover $15,000 for professional services claimed to have been rendered to the plaintiffs in error jointly. The defence was that the contract was several. The agreement between the companies 108 361 L-ed 754 24f 517 |