AWARD. APPORTIONMENT. SERVICE. By with extraordinary violence. The J. C. Potter, L. R. 2 Ad. 292; 40 L. J. Ad. 9. V.-SERVICE. S. s. Longford, 1000 tons gross, 476 nett tons register, with a general cargo, 162 passengers, and 182 cattle, specie value of £50,000, was injured by collision in the Mersey, began to fill with water. The tug Mersey King towed her to the wall, where she was beached. The Rover took passengers and luggage, The Knight of Malta, Rover and Royal Alfred took the cattle. Total value of property proceeded against £72,000. The Longford, L. R. 6 P. D. 60; 50 L. J. Ad. D. 28. VI.-SERVICE. Mail and Passenger Steamer-Towage by Steamer. The Brazilian screw s. s. 9495 tons gross, 2284 tons nett register, 350 nominal, and 1850 indicated horse power, from Boston to Liverpool, with cattle, pigs and sheep, flour and bacon, with crew and cattle attendant, 75 hands in all, on 20th September, in Atlantic Ocean, 165° Ŵ. of Fastnel light, lat. 50° 40' N., long. 149 W., fell in with City of Chester. SERVICE. The latter was a mail s. s. 2712 tons nett, from New York to Liverpool, with crew of 146 hands, carrying passengers, mails and cargo, with crank shaft of her propeller broken and engines disabled, proceeding under sail at about 5 knots as long as wind was favourable. With difficulty, and after various breakings of the hawser, the Brazilian took the City of Chester in tow, and continued towing till 2 p.m. September 22, off Irish coast, remained by till 6 a.m. on September 23, when tugs took City of Chester to Liverpool. Value of Brazilian £60,000, live stock, £22,000, cargo, £15,000. City of Chester of great value. The City of Chester, Jan. 20, 1881, (unreported). VII-.SERVICE. Property-Service on Diseased Ship -Navigation. Barque Hirundo, 332 tons, crew of 8 hands, left Mexico, in August, for Queenstown, with cargo. On August 26, about 3000 miles from Liverpool, in lat. 36 N., long. 70° W. falls in with barque Skibladner, 360 tons, 10 hands, bound from Florida to Liverpool. The first and second mates were ill with fever, master had been too weak to do anything since leaving port. Skibladner was lost to sight, and on 1st September, seen again and boarded, first mate was then dead, another seaman was very ill, and no one to navigate. O. O., mate of Hirundo, who was the only person, except the master, who could navigate the ship, was left on Skibladner, and navigated her to Liverpool. Arrived on 11th October. 11th September, a gale, and O. 0. had to work as a seaman-Skibladner's value, £2500, freight and cargo, £2635. Tender, £515. The Skibladner, L. R. 3 P, D. 24; 47 L. J. Ad. D. 84, of service. towage. CHAPTER II. TOWAGE. A contract TOWAGE is a contract of service whereby the tug, which must be competent to fulfil the engagement, by being properly found with crew, tackle, and equipments, agrees to tow a vessel from one point to another for the purpose of expediting her on her voyage, and to use her best endeavours for the purpose.' This is ordinary towage, extraordinary towage is in the nature of salvage, and arises from an agreement to tow a disabled vessel to a place of Ordinary safety. Salvage services can be engrafted on ordinary towage, but not on extraordinary, which is for the purpose of saving a vessel, not merely expediting her on her voyage.3 The Admiralty Division has jurisdiction by statute to decide all claims and demands in the nature of towage. Under this authority it will enforce payment for towage services and also agreements entered into in regard to towage, but in the latter case the amount of remuneration to be received must be reasonable and certain. Thus, in one instance, where in addition to a fixed sum the master of the towed vessel agreed to give to the master of the tug an order upon the wharf owner for payment by him to the owners of the tug of the habitual premiuman uncertain amount-which was given to owners of tugs who should bring custom to the wharf, the Court 1 The Minnehaha, Lush. 345 (347). 3 The Princess Alice, 3 W. Rob. 138; The Kingalock, 1 Spk. 263. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, see App. I. County Courts have jurisdiction over towage claims up to £150, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, s. 3. refused either to enforce the agreement or to give damages for the breach of it.1 To be entitled to remuneration the tug must have fulfilled the obligations arising from the duty which she has undertaken;2 nor when the amount to be paid for the service is fixed is the tug entitled to claim any extra sum in respect of a delay in the transit, as when a tow in the Thames, having come into collision with another vessel, the tug waited three days at Gravesend for the tow.3 may be engage From the fulfilment of her contract the tug may be How a tug released by discovering that material facts as to the tow released were concealed when the agreement was made, or by from her a vis major or uncontemplated accidents which render the ment. fulfilment of the engagement impossible; but unforeseen difficulties do not come within either of these terms.5 Thus the breaking of the hawser, and delay in consequence, would be an example of a difficulty only. It may be doubted, however, whether the delay in the Thames mentioned above was not such an uncontemplated accident as would have entitled the tug to have refused to wait by the tow, and to have considered the engagement at an end. But when the contract is dissolved by a vis major, or an uncontemplated accident, it is the duty of the tug to remain by the tow in order to render all the assistance in her power, and then for the extra service the tug is entitled to claim salvage reward. On the other hand, a conceal- Release of ment of material facts as to the state of the tug, or her inability during the transit to complete her service with- ment. out delay, would entitle the tow to consider herself released from the contract, though any breach of it by the tug may The Martha, Swa. 314. The Edward Hawkins, Lush. 515. The Hjemmet, L. R. 5 P. D. 227; 49 L. J. Ad. D. 66. • The Kingalock, 1 Spk. 263. 5 The Minnehaha, Lush. 345. "The Annapolis, Lush. 355; The J. C. Potter, L. R. 3 Ad. 392; 40 L. J. Ad. 9; and further as to salvage by tugs, see ante, p. 18. tow from engage the per⚫ formance of the contract. be waived, like the breach of any other contract by the other party.1 Legal The principles which govern the performance of the principles governing contract have been concisely laid down in the leading case of the Julia,2 in the following sentence, "the law would imply an engagement that each vessel would perform its duty in completing it; that proper skill and diligence would be used on board of each; that neither vessel, by neglect or misconduct, would create unnecessary risk to the other, or increase any risk which might be incidental to the service undertaken. If in the course of the performance of this contract any inevitable accident happened to the one, without any default on the part of the other, no cause of action would arise. Such an accident would be one of the necessary risks of the engagement to which each party was subject, and could create no liability on the part of the other. If, on the other hand, the wrongful act of either occasioned any damage to the other, such wrongful act would create a responsibility on the party committing it, if the sufferer had not by any misconduct or unskilfulness on her part contributed to the accident." On these principles the tug has been held liable for damage to the tow occasioned by a collision with a third vessel through the unskilful management of the tug, and to indemnify a tow for the loss of anchors and hawsers lost by the tug taking a course too near a lee shore, and a tow not to be entitled to damages against a tug for running her aground in a thick fog, since she herself had been guilty of contributory negligence by consenting to proceed in a fog of great density, in a narrow channel.5 4 1 The Lady Flora Hastings, 3 W. Rob. 118. 2 Lush 224; 14 Moo. P. C. 210. 3 The Night Watch, Lush. 542; The Energy, L. R. 3 Ad. 48; 39 L. J. Ad. 25. The Robert Dixon, L. R. 5 P. D. 54. Smith v. The St. Lawrence Ironboat Co., L. R. 5 P. C. 308; 28 L. T. N. S. 805. The case of The Industrie, L. R. 3 Ad. 303; 40 L. J. Ad. 26, shows that the Court has jurisdiction if damage has been |