Jnrcnmm rams!. co. v. PATTERSON. 51
money of the cotton to New Orleans upon the Ohoteau was included
in the average expense, but very much the largest part of the expense
was that of the wrecking boat, and the efforts to raise the Mitchell
and the cargo left upon her after the cotton had been placed upon the
Ghotcau.
It is usual in such cases to employ a wrecking·boat, and the deck
cargo is generally removed for the purpose of lightening the sunken
vessel and of thereby aiding to raise it, and the cargo remaining upon
it before the wrecking boat can eiiectually proceed with its work,
though in this case the wrecking boat did not actually aid in removing .
this deck cotton. The eiforts to relieve the Mitchell and her cargo, »
however, werecontinuous from the time of the disaster to the raising
of the vessel with the cargo on board. Proof was offered to show that
under the circumstances developed in this case it was the custom on
the western rivers to embrace all the expenses claimed in the general
average statement. ,
Under these circumstances it was claimed by the underwriters upon y
_ the cotton that the captain of the Mitchell had separated the cotton
from the Mitchell and put it in a place of security without any inten-
tion of again placing it on her or of completing his trip, and that it
could not, therefore, be required to contribute for any part of the ex-
penses subsequently incurred in raising the Mitchell and her re-
maining cargo, as the cargo was not taken or intended to be taken on
board the Mitchell, and as she did not complete her trip. The case
of Job v. Langton, 6 El. & Bl. 790, and other English and American
cases were relied upon to sustain that position.
On the other hand, it was contended that the shipment of the cot-
ton by the captain of the Mitchell in his name toan agent appointed
by him, with instructions not to deliver it without an average bond,
showed that he did not intend to separate it from the general expense;
_that the owners of the cotton and their underwriters were interested
in the saving of the Mitchell and her remaining cargo, in order that
the cotton might be under the protection of the general average until
its arrival and safe delivery in New Orleans to the consignees; and
that, being so interested in saving all that could be saved as a con-
tributing interest, the case was, under the American law, one of gen-
eral average, and that all the property in peril at the time of the dis-
aster, and when the efforts to protect and save it were commenced,
must be taken into the average as a contributory interest.
Lincoln e6·,Stcvcns and H. C'. Watrlnncr, for complainant.
Clapp at Beard, for defendants.
Before Bxxrnn and Hmmoun, JJ`.
Br rim Cover, (orally.) The captain of the Mitchell did not, evi- _
dently, intend to separate the cotton of the defendants from the rest
of the cargo, nor to deliver it to them at their own risk after the dis-
aster. Not only did he ship it to his own account, and direct that it -
should not be delivered to the original consignees without an average