
    C. D. MAFFITT v. CAPTAIN HAMMERLAND and A. S. HEIDE.
    (Filed 11 March, 1908).
    Principal and Agent — Seamen—Procuring—Accommodation—United States Revised Statutes, Vol. VI, p. 909.
    In an action to recover of defendant moneys advanced him in procuring seamen, no charge being made for services, the plaintiff being a ship broker, the defense will not be sustained that recovery cannot be had under 0 Revised Statutes of the United States, p. 909.
    Civil ACTION, tried before Biggs, J., and a jury, at December Term, 1907, of tbe Superior Court of New IIaNovee County.
    Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant Ileide appealed.
    
      John D. Bellamy for plaintiff.
    
      Herbert McGlammy for defendants.
   PeR OuexaM :

Tbe defendants contend tbat, upon tbe evidence, tbe plaintiff cannot recover under tbe Revised Statutes of the United States, Vol. VI, p. 909. Tbe evidence for plaintiff tended to prove tbat Hudson Bros., of Norfolk, are not shipping commissioners, whose fees for enlisting seamen are fixed by tbe statute, but general ship brokers. Tbe plaintiff’s evidence tends also to prove tbat tbe defendant Hammer-land, tbe captain of a Norwegian steamer, went to plaintiff and asked him to procure four sailors for bis ship before be left port. Maffitt told defendant be could not furnish tbe men, but they might be obtained in Norfolk, and, as a favor to defendant, be would wire Hudson Bros., a firm of ship brokers in Norfolk, and probably,get them there. Maffitt wired, and received a reply tbat be could get them for $20 a man and railroad fare. Plaintiff took tbe telegram to defendant, and tbe latter, after reading it, asked Maffitt to procure tbe men and advance tbe money necessary, stating tbat be would reimburse him. Plaintiff paid out for defendant $120, railroad fare, telegrams, shipping fees, etc., charging defendant not a cent for his services, and paying the money simply as a favor to ITammerland. The defendants’ only defense is that the money paid was paid in violation of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

We do not think that the defendants’ contention is well founded.  