JACKSONVILLE FORWARDING CO. v. ONEIDA NAVIGATION CO. et al. THE PERRY SETZER

JACKSONVILLE FORWARDING CO. v. ONEIDA NAVIGATION CO. et al. THE PERRY SETZER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 8, 1924.) No. 4157. Salvage <§=^51 — Amount of award reviewable only for clear error or when grossly inadequate or excessive. A decree for salvage will not be reversed because of the amount of the award, unless grossly inadequate or excessive, or a mistake of fact or error of law clearly appears. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida; Rhydon M. Call, Judge. Suit in admiralty by the Jacksonville Forwarding Company against the schooner Perry Setzer and cargo; the Oneida Navigation Company, claimant. From the decree, libelant appeals. Affirmed. For opinion below, see 288 Fed. 209. George C. Bedell, of Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant. Wm. E. Kay, Thos. B. Adams, Reuben Ragland, and E. J. I/Engle, all of Jacksonville, Fla. (Kay, Adams & Ragland, of Jacksonville, Fla., Barry, Wainwright, Thacher & Symmers, of New York City, E. J. L’Engle, Walter F. Rogers, and J. W. Shands, all of Jacksonville, Fla., and Bigham, Englar & Jones, of New York City, on the brief), for appellees. Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge. <©=s>For otlier cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes [MAJORITY — WALKER, Circuit Judge.] WALKER, Circuit Judge. The decree appealed from is complained of on the ground that the amount thereby awarded to the appellant for a salvage service was inadequate. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion rendered by the District Judge. 288 Fed. 209. It is not claimed that that statement is incorrect or inadequate in any material respect. The opinion indicates that due consideration was given to all circumstances having a bearing on the question of the amount to be awarded for the salvage service found to have been rendered. The rule governing an appellate court in passing on the question of the propriety of the amount awarded by a trial court for a salvage service is well settled and familiar. This court recently has had occasion to restate and apply that rule. The Santa Rita ( C. C. A.) 281 Fed. 760. The result of applying that rule to this case is the conclusion that the decree appealed from is not subject to be reversed on the ground urged. It has not been made to appear that the amount awarded was grossly inadequate, or that the action of the court in fixing that amount was influenced by any mistake of fact or error of law. The decree is affirmed.