TWENTIETH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 77. 1828.
291
complishment of that object, and that the same be paid out of any moneyin the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, May 23, 1828.
Statute I.
Chap. LXXVII. — An Act to establish a southern judicial district in the territory May 23, 1828.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America, in Congress assembled, That there shall be establishedanother judicial district in the territory of Florida , to be called the south-ern district, embracing all that part of the territory which lies south of aline from Indian river on the east, and Charlotte harbour on the west, in-cluding the latter harbour; which said court shall exercise all the juris-diction within said district as the other superior courts, respectively, ex-ercise within their respective districts, and shall be subject to all thelaws which govern or regulate the same ; and there shall be appointedfor said district a judge, and he is hereby authorized to appoint a clerk
Judge to beappointed,whomay appoint a
(a) Act relating to the courts of Florida , vol. iii. 752.
The following case, which originated in the courts established by the act of May 23, 1S26, containsdecisions upon principles of admiralty law, of great general interest.
The schooner North Carolina, bound from Appalachicola to Charleston , with a cargo of cotton, part onaccount of the consignees, and part the property of the shipper, struck on a reef about ninety-fivemiles from Key West ; and the next morning one hundred and ten bales of cotton were taken from herby the wrecking schooner Hyder Ally, when she floated, and she sailed with the Hyder Ally to IndianKey, and arrived there the same evening. The Hyder Ally was one of those wrecking schooners in theprofits of which Houseman was a participator. He became the consignee of the North Carolina ; andsalvage being claimed by the master of the Hyder Ally, a reference was made by the master of theNorth Carolina , and the master of the wrecker, and by an award thirty-five per cent, was allowed assalvage; and one hundred and two bales of cotton were put into the stores of Houseman, in part pay-ment of the salvage; and one hundred dollars was paid in cash, and a draft for six hundred dollars wasgiven by the captain of the North Carolina , in further satisfaction of the salvage, and the commissionsof Houseman, with the vessel’s expenses. Afterwards, the consignees of the cotton sent an agent toKey West, who proceeded, by a libel in his name, as agent in the superior court of the United States of Monroe county in Florida , alleging the facts, and by process issued by the court, seventy-two balesof the cotton of the North Carolina were attached in the hands of Houseman. The court decreed thatthe libellant should recover the seventy-two bales of cotton, and Houseman appealed to the court ofappeals. In that court, a supplemental libel was filed by the appellee, claiming damages for the takingand the detention of fifty other bales of cotton, making the whole number of one hundred and twenty-two bales, which had gone into the possession of Houseman. The court of appeals gave a decree infavour of the appellee for the value of one hundred and twenty-two bales. The Supreme Court affirmedthe decree as to the seventy-two bales, and set aside that part of the decree which allowed the valueof the fifty bales; leaving the consignees or owners of the fifty bales to proceed in the superior courtof East Florida by a new libel for the recovery of the same or the value thereof. Houseman v. TheSchooner North Carolina, 15 Peters, 41.
There are many cases in which the contract of the captain, in relation to the amount of salvage to bepaid to the salvors, or his agreement to refer the question to arbitrators, would bind the owners. In timesof disaster, it is always his duty to exercise his best judgment, and to use his best exertions for the benefitof both the vessel and cargo: and when, from his situation, he is unable to consult them or their agent,without an inconvenient and injurious delay, it is in his power to compromise a question of salvage, andhe is not bound in all cases to wait for the decision of a court of admiralty. Ibid.
So, too, when the salvage service has not been important, and the compensation demanded is a smallone, it may often be the interest of the owners, that the amount should be settled at once by the captain,and the vessel proceed on her voyage, without waiting even a day for the purpose of consulting them.But in all such cases, unless the acts of the captain are ratified by the owners, his conduct will be care-fully watched and scrutinized by the court; and his contracts will not be regarded as binding on theparties concerned, unless they appear to have been bona fide, and such as a discreet owner, placed inthe same circumstances, would probably have made. If he settles the amount by agreement, those whoclaim under it must show that the salvage allowed was reasonable and just. If he refers it to arbitrators,those who claim the benefit of the award, must show that the proceedings were fair, and the refereesworthy of the trust. Ibid.
The case is within the jurisdiction of a court of admiralty. It is a question of salvage of a vesselwhich had been stranded on a reef in the ocean. The points in controversy are whether salvage is due,and if due, how much. The admiralty is the only court in which such a question can be tried. Ibid.
It is well settled in admiralty proceedings, that the agent of absent owners may libel either in hisown name,'as agent, or in the name of his principals, as he thinks best. That a power of attorneygiven subsequent to the libel is a sufficient ratification of what he had before done in their behalf, andthat the consignees of a cargo have a sufficient interest in the cargo that they may proceed in the admi-ralty for the recovery not only of their own property, but for that part of it which may be consigned tothem. Ibid.