58 FEDERAIi REPORTEE. �ment made by him would require them first to resort to that tneana oi payment before eoming upon the fund designed for Kerr's own beuefit. . I cannot perceive any ground of legal right in the libellants to share in the money paid to Kejr. No part of it was paid to their aee or for their benefit. The basis of the award was a towage serv- ice merely, in which they had no legal interest. Whatever elements of.salvage there were, according to the judgment of this court, in the actual service rendered, must be deemed, under the express terms of the award, to have beeii excluded and disregarded. The statementin the award that the sum allowed was "in full for the entire service, " is eontrdlled by the other statement that only a towage service and not a salVage service was allowed for. The sum given was awarded in full for a towage service, and that only. It was not in full for a salvage service, for' thfit claim was disallowed. And while Kerr i» bouiid by the finding that the service was a towage service only, other parties not bound cannot charge him, contrary to the fact, with having receivedthe money as full salvage compensation, when it was awarded to and recfeived by him simply as towage, and for his own exclusive use. �The libellante, moreover, have an ample remedy against the Colon. Their rights are unimpaired by the award and settlement in the for- riier suit. They are in ilO degree bound thereby. The rights of co- salvors are not joint but several. The captain and owner have no authority to receive pa3Tnent in behalf of other co-salvors, much less to submit their claims to arbitration or compromise. The Britain, 1 W. Kob. 40; The Sarah Jane, 2 W. Eob. 110; 2 Pars. Ship. & Adm. book 2, c. 8, § 1. But in this case the libellants were not par- ties to the former suit, nor to the arbitration, award, or settlement; they had no notice of the proeeedings, and were not legally repre- sented; and, considering that "the question of their right was not raised," as the arbitrator testifies, it is scarcely credible that the owners of the Colon supposed that their settlement with Mr. Kerr waa not at the risk of any future claims against the Colon for salvage by the officers and crew of the Pomona. �In the adjudged cases in which contribution to the crew haa been requiredoutof moneys paid to the Owner, the decisions have been based upon the ground that it appeared unmistakably that the money was in payment of the whole service as salvage, and received in behalf of ait interested. In Eojf v. TFass, 2 Sawy. .538, the bill rendered and paid was, "The Astoria and owners, Dr., to salvage services, $5,000." ��� �
