1. ADMIRALTY — APPEAL—ISSUES REVIEW ABLE.

In a suit for wages by the master of a vessel against the owner and insurers, the only controversy was as to the ownership of the vessel during the time libelant’s services were rendered; the owner claiming to have abandoned her to the insurers, and the insurers denying such abandonment. The court dismissed the libel as to the insurers and entered a decree in favor of libelant against the owner, who alone appealed. Held, that he was entitled to maintain such apx>eal and to a review of the decision as between himself and his co-respondents.

2. Insurance — Marike Insurance — Evidence on Acceptance of Abandonment.

The action of the insurers of a stranded vessel in sending an agent- to take charge, and to salve her, if possible, cannot be construed against them, on the question whether or not they accepted an abandonment, where it was expressly agreed between them and the owners that such agent should go as the representative of all parties in interest.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, § 1216.1

3. Same.

The insurers of a stranded schooner, under policies which provided that no acts in recovering, saving, and preserving the property insured, in case of disaster, should be considered a waiver or an acceptance of an abandonment, sent an agent to take charge of the vessel, under an agreement with the owner that he should represent all interests. By direction of the insurers, in which the owner refused to take part, the agent contracted for the salving of the vessel, and after her release the insurers had her temporarily repaired, and she loaded a cargo and carried the same to San Francisco; her master having remained with her at request of the agent in charge. The owner refused to give any direction respecting her employment, and on her arrival in San Francisco refused to receive her or accept her freight, claiming that she had been abandoned to the insurers, which they at all times denied. They afterward had her permanently repaired, but permitted her to be sold for the cost of such repairs. This was five months or more after the stranding. Held, that their action, in retaining possession for such length of time without permanently repairing, and in finally permitting the vessel to be sold, was not authorized by such clause of the policies, and under the circumstances amounted to a constructive acceptance of the abandonment, whether or not the owner originally had the right to abandon.

[Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, § 1216.]

4. Same — Stranding of Vessel — Liability for Subsequent Wages of Master.

The master of a stranded vessel, who remains with her, does so as the agent of whoever may be ultimately determined to be her owner in consequence of that event, and, where an abandonment is subsequently accepted by the insurers, although it may be months afterward, it relates back to the date of the stranding, and the master is from that time their agent, for whose wages they are responsible.