Anthanissen v. Dart
| Decision Date | 17 September 1894 |
| Parties | ANTHANISSEN. v. DART et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Salvage Services — Action in State Court — Amount of Recovery—Evidence — Record in Another Action—Joinder of Plaintiffs.
1. The laws of Georgia furnish to suitors no remedy or process which operates purely as a proceeding in rem. Consequently, that principle in the law of salvage which allows bounties and rewards for perilous service, in addition to the actual value of the service, cannot be recognized and applied by the courts of the state, but should be treated as matter belonging exclusively to the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States. But the peril of the service, both to life and property, and the value of the property saved, may be taken into consideration in arriving at the value of the service, where there was no express agreement touching the amount of compensation.
2. The plaintiffs suing now for services rendered in saving a vessel, and seeking to recover upon principles of the law of salvage and for the value of the services, without reference to any express contract, the record of a previous action brought by the plaintiffs jointly with another plaintiff, whether a corporation or not, is receivable for the admissions contained therein tending to show, in connection with parol testimony, that the services then sued for were the same, so far as the present plaintiffs are concerned, as those now sued for, and were in fact rendered upon an express written contract, which was joint as to all the plaintiffs in the former action, and which fixed a lump sum to be paid to and received by them jointly. Though the admissions might not operate as an estoppel, yet they would be relevant evidence bearing both upon the right to recover and the measure of the recovery.
3. Where three render services without request, and another takes the benefit of the general result, thereby rendering himself liable on an implied undertaking to pay for the services, the three are not bound to sue jointly merely because they co-operated in rendering the services, and had an understanding among themselves as to a division of the compensation. Each one is entitled to stand upon his right, as against the defendant, to recover for himself the value of his own services, unless some other reason for implying a joint rather than a several contract appears. Even where the right is several, it may be necessary, or at least proper, to consider the value of all the services in arriving at the value of those rendered by the plaintiff in the action.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Glynn county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.
Action by Horace Dart and others against N. M. Anthanissen for salvage services. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Following is the official report:
Action was brought on a quantum meruit by Horace Dart, W. R. Dart, Frank M. Dart, and D. B. Stallings, against N. M. Anthanissen, as master and part owner of the Norwegian bark Svalen, for services rendered by plaintiffs, with their tugboat U. Dart, in rescuing the bark from its perilous position on the breakers of the outer bar of Brunswick on February 4, 1891. The jury found for the plaintiffs $475, May 10, 1893. Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.
The declaration alleges that on February 4, 1891, the bark having grounded and being in peril, plaintiffs went with said tugboat, and endeavored to pull the bark off upon the high tide of that day; that the weather was rough and threatening, and the adventure of plaintiffs was hazardous and dangerous to them and their property; that subsequently the master of the bark abandoned and partly dismantled it, and left it to its fate; that plaintiffs sent out said tugboat, which, together with other tugboats in the harbor of Brunswick, succeeded, upon another high tide, in towing the bark from its perilous position to a place of safety, and but for the service so rendered the bark would have gone to pieces upon the bar where it lay grounded; that the bark was worth $9,000. and its cargo of lumber worth $3,500; and that the weather was rough, high, and threatening at the time the service was rendered, and the same was done at imminent peril and risk to plaintiffs' tugboat, and to the officers and employes thereon, and was worth the sum of $1,800.
The motion for new trial contains the grounds that the verdict is contrary to law and evidence, and is excessive, and the following special grounds:
The defendant offered in evidence a copy of the record of a former suit in the same court (17 S. E. 951), "which showed that the plaintiff in the present suit had previously joined as a coplaintiff with two other plaintiffs, suing as copartners, and who. for the services in and about the rescue of the bark for which this action was brought, had in said suit based their right to recover upon a written agreement, " dated at Brunswick. Ga., February 4, 1891, "between owners of tugboats Inca and U. Dart and N. M. Anthanissen, master of Nor. bark Svalen, now on south breakers of outer bar of Brunswick." The agreement further states "that said boats Inca and U. Dart shall render said vessel all assistance possible in relieving her from her perilous position; and should they succeed in pulling her off, and towing her into place of safety, that the said Capt. N. M. Anthanissen, as agent of vessel and cargo, shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial