RIBEBACUDI V. VkfBB. 67S �to whioîi he was exposed by the ice. The answer is that the respondent performed his whole daty to the vessel in anchor- ing her where he did ; that it was a safe and proper place to leave her at anchor; and that he thought it to be so when he advised the master to have her anchored there. �It is clear that pilots are responsible to the owners of a vessel for their negligence or default in the performance of their duty. 1 Parsons Sh, & Adm. 118, 119, and cases cited. The laws of Oleron contain the following articles : "23. If a pUot undertakes the conduct of a vessel to bring her to St. Malo, or any other port, and fail of his duty therein, so as the vessel miscarry by reason of his ignorance in what he undertook, and the merchant sustain damage thereby, he shall be obliged to make fuU satisfaction for the same if he hath wherewithal ; and if not, lose his head." "24. And if the master, or any one of his mariners, or any one of the merchants, eut oflf his head, they shall not be bound to answer for it; but, before they do it, they must be sure he had not wherewith to make satisfaction." 1 Laws of the Adm. 82. Chancellor Kent says, (3 Kent Com. 176, 12th Ed. :) "The pilot, while on board, bas the exclusive control of the ship. He is considered as master pro hac vice,- and if any loss or injury be sustained in the navigation of the ves- sel, while under the charge of the pilot, he is answerable as strictly as if he were a common carrier, for his default, neg- ligence, or unskilfulness; and the owner would also be re- sponsible to the party injured for the act of the pilot, as being the act of his agent, " �Although the taking of the pilot is compulsory, and he supersedes the master in the navigation, yet the vessel is liable for his negligence. The China, 1 Wall. 53. In the case last cited the court say, (p. 67 :) "The services of the pilot are as much for the benefit of the vessel and cargo as those of the captain and crew. His compensation cornes from the same source as theirs. Like them he serves the owner, and is paid by the owner. If there be any default on his part, the owner bas the same remedies against him as against other delinquents on board. The difference between ����
