These were three libels of intervention filed in the district court of the United States for the district of Louisiana against the ship Tornado, her cargo and freight, and the proceeds thereof in the registry of that court, to recover for salvage services rendered by three steam-tugs, the Rio Grande, the Norman, and the Harry Wright.
The libel in the case of the Rio Grande alleges an employment of her owners on the twenty-seventh of February, 1878, by the master and agents of the Tornado, 'to pump out and raise said ship and her cargo,' with the pumps and appliances of the Rio Grande, for a compensation of $50 per hour, and claims $14,900, for 298 hours, from 6 o'clock P. M. on February 27th till 4 o'clock A. M. on March 12th. It alleges that the marshal of the United States seized the ship while the work was going on, and directed the libelants to proceed under the contract to finish the work.
The libel in the case of the Norman alleges an employment of her owners on the twenty-seventh of February, by the master and agents of the Tornado, 'to assist in pumping out and raising said ship and cargo,' by the use of the Norman and her appliances, for a compensation of $50 per hour, and claims $13,900, for 278 hours, from 6 o'clock P. M. on February 27th till 8 o'clock A. M. on March 11th. The libel alleges that the ship was under seizure by the marshal when the work was commenced, and that the marshal continued the services of the Norman till the saving of the ship and cargo was fully assured.
The libel in the case of the Rio Grande alleges an employment of her owners, on February 27th, to pump water out of the ship, and to remain near her afterwards, ready to render service, for a compensation of $50 per hour, and claims $11,200, for 224 hours, from 10 o'clock P. M. on February 27th till 6 o'clock A. M. on March 9th. The libel alleges that the ship was raised and saved, with her cargo, late in the afternoon of February 28th, and that the marshal, after he seized the ship and cargo, continued the employment of the tug under said contract.
The resistance to these claims is made by the underwriters on the cargo, to whom the cargo was abandoned. Their answer alleges that the ship and cargo and her freight were seized by the marshal about midday of February 27th; that the three tugs came about sundown on the 27th, but performed no effective service in pumping during that night; that effective pumping began the next morning; and that by noon on the 28th the ship was raised out of the water, and was free from all danger of sinking or again taking in water.
The district court awarded $1,000 to each tug, one-half to her owners and the other half to her crew. The owners of the three tugs appealed to the circuit court, and that court awarded to the owners of each tug $1,000, and they have appealed to this court. The circuit court found the facts and the conclusions of law on which it rendered its decree. There is no bill of exceptions, and our review of the decree must be limited to a determination of the questions of law arising on the record. The material findings of fact of the circuit court were as follows: