MITCHELL 'IBANSP. 00. U. PL'I‘TEBSON• 49
that alone, and that it takes much pains to require that he shall sep-
arate it from his general estate. There is no provision of that law
which can be construed on the most liberal principles of construction
to give to the individual head of family an exemption out of property
owned by others than himself. He derives this exemption exclusively
from express statute. If a partner claims the exemption, he must
show an express statutory grant of the right to reserve it out of part-
nership effects. The homestead law of Virginia will be searched in
vain for such a grant; and that law not granting it, either in terms .
or by implication, the partner cannot reserve it. In this deed the
partners make this reservation, and make it in such a way that the
reserved property can come to them no otherwise than out of part·
nership property. Neither one of the partners can say that this was
"his property." Their reservation, therefore, of $4,000 for their in-
dividual ben•t was illegal, was a fraud in law, and their deed was
therefore null and void.
Decree accordingly.
. Mrrormm. TRANSP. C0. v. Pyrrnasow and others.
(Uircuit Court, W. D. Tennessee. January 17, 1884.) V
1. Mmmm [usorunom-Gannmn AVERAGE——SEPARATION on- Crmeo.
Where thc captain of a sunken steam-boat reshipped a part of his cargo on
another vessel, consigned to agents of his own, with instructions not to deliver
to the original consignces except upon their giving a general average bond,
and, having returned to the port of shipment for that purpose, did not notify ’
the consignors, held, that this was evidence of his intention not to separate
that portion of the cargo from the burden of the general average, and that it
was liable to contribution, notwithstanding the sunken vessel, when raised, re-
. turned to the nearest port of safety for repairs, and did not again take on board
that part of her cargo, and did not complete the voyage.
2. SAME Susamcr-—Ex¤m1<sms.
The general average should include all the expenses from the disaster, not
excluding those incurred for the reshipment of another part of the cargo from
the port of safety first reached. ‘
This was a case in equity by which the owners of the steam-boat
Robert Mitchell sought to recover from sundry defendants their shares
of a general-average expense made in endeavoring to raise the said
steamer and the cargo on board. The following are the facts of the
case:
The steamer Robert Mitchell, while on a trip from Cairo to New
Orleans, struck some hidden obstruction in the Mississippi river at a
point near Fox island, and sank. This island is about 60 miles be-
low Memphis, Tennessee. The boat and cargo were in imminent peril
of total loss. She had on board an assorted cargo of grain, flour,
meal, hay, horses, oil, and about 750 bales of cotton. The latter was
v.22F,no.1—4
O