m'oONNOCHIE V. KEBB. 59 �Judge Sawyer, in affirtning the decision below, says: "I am satisfied this c)^im covered the entire salvage services. * ♦ * Nothing indicates any intention to limit the Qlaim;to that part of the compen- sation due to the owners of the vessel as separate claimants." In Studley T. Baker, 'i Low. 305, it "appeared plainly" that $1,540 of the bill paid to the owners was for salvage services; and, on pay- ment, the oi^ners gave a receipt for the "owners, masters.and crew." Judge Lowell says : "The compensation was such as to indicate beyond mistake that it was understpod to be for salvage service, and perfectly plain that it was the interest of both parties to adjust the compensa- tion for the whole salvage service." And in The Centurion, Ware, 477, the same substantial facts appeared. �In the present case it is equally plain that the opposite was in- tended by the award, and by the settlement and payment made in pursuance of it. Had the award been made in this case as the «ntire compensation for a salvage service, the libellants, upon the cases cited, would have been entitled to contribution. So, also, if a price had been originally fixed for the service, whatever its character might be, and the question submitted to the arbitrator had been merely whether it were a towage or a salvage service, and he had held it a towage service merely, upon which the whole sum stipu- lated had been paid to Kerr, I should have had no hesitation in adjudging contribution in such an action as this ; for, in that case, the arbitra tor's erroneous decision as to the legal character of the service rendered could not have had any influence in fixing the amount to be paid for the service. The owner, by his receipt of the ■whole stipulated price, would in that case have become possessed of the fund appropriated to its entire payment, and the libellants, not being bound by the award, could, at their option, have followed the fund as held by intendment of law in part for their beuefit. �It is claimed by the libellants that, inasmuch as Kerr received this money in a suit brought by him "in behalf of all entitled" for a sal- y&g& compensation, he is estopped from denying that it was received by him as salvage, and for the benefit of all. I do not percoive how this -proposition can be sustained. There is no sueh relation between a salving owner libellant and other co-salvors, not actual parties, as legally precludes the former from showing the ternis of a settlement made by him on his own account, or from retaining the moneys intended to be paid to his own use. It could not be claimed that any such estoppel would apply to a decree of the court in such a suit ��� �
