m'cONNOOHIB V. KBRE. 61 �and not as salvage, and received by the owner as for towage, he was entitled to letain it to his own use. The offlcers and crew not having been parties to the former suit, nor to the award and the settlement under it, their rights and remedies against the Colon are in no way aliected by it. �4. ESTOPPEL. �Semble, upon a libel filed " in behalf of all entitled," the libellant, so long as no others have become actual parties and no decree had, is not estopped from settling the suit for his own interest and retaining the proceeds, accord» ing to the practice in analogous suits in equity. 2 Sim. & 8tu. 196, note. Bee Stevens v. The Bailroads, 4 Fbd. Rbp. 97, and note, p. 110. �In Admirally. �Butler, Stillman e Huhhard, for libellants �Hill, Wing e Shoudy, for respondents. �Beown, D. J. The libellants are three of the crew of the steam- ship Pomona, who filed this "libel and petition," in behalf of them- selves and all others interested, to recover their share of $3,025.75, alleged to have been received by the respondents Kerr and Mahlman, the former as owner of the Pomona and the latter as its captain, for salvage serviiees rendered to the steam-ship Colon on July 14, 1880. The answer admits the receipt of the money, but alleges that the service rendered to the Colon was not a salvage, but a niiere towage service, in which Kcrr only, as owner of the Pomona, had any legal interest. �If the money in question was paid to and received by Kerr as salvage compensation, and for the entire service, as substantially alleged in the libel, I have no doubt of the jurisdiction of this court to compel contribution to the libellants in this action. The receipt of the whole compensation as salvage would ueeessarily import its receipt for the benefit of all other co-salvors interested in the same service; and the determination and apportionment of the several interests of co-salvors in the gross sum received by one of them would present questions peeuliarly within the cognizance of a court of admiralty. Its jurisdiction in such cases has been frequently exercised in this country during the last half century. The Centurion, Ware, 477; Roff\. Wass, 2 Sawy. 538; Waterbury v.Myrick, 1 B. & H. 34. Numerous other instances of this kind are cited by Judge Lowell in the careful opinion given by hiin in the case of Studley v. Baker, 2 Low. 205, which renders further references here unneces- sary, �The questions presented for decision are, whether the service rendered to the Colon was a salvage service, and, if so, whether the libellants have any claim for contribution from the moneys received ��� �
