
    SILLIMAN’S CASE.
    (12 C. Cls. R., 433; 101 U. S. R., 465.)
    Robert F. Silliman et al. v. The United States.
    
      On both parties’ Appeals.
    
    
      During the war the claimants lei ihcir barges to the Quartermaster Department at-an agreed rate of compensation for such periods as their services may be required. After they have been for a long time in service, the Quartermaster-General orders that the compensation be reduced and new charters executed. The owners decline and demand that their barges be returned. The department refuses to discharge the barges, or to pay any compensation whatever until the new charters be executed. The otoners yield under what seems to them necessity, executing the Hew charters wider protest. The new charters reduce the wages, but provide that the vessels shall be returned to the owners in the same order as when received, ordinary wear, tfc., excepted. They are injured by the peculiar service in which they are employed, and are not returned in as good order as when received.
    
    Tlie court "below decides: (1) Tliat duress did not arise from the withholding of vessels which, by tbe terms of tbe charters, might be retained as long as required in tbe government service; (2) That duress did not arise from tbe withholding of the vessels’ wages to compel the owners to execute now charters; (3) That covenants requiring the owners to keep the vessel tight, staunch, and strong, lit for merchant service, and the charterers to return the vessel in as good order as when received, ordinary wear and-tear, &c., excepted, were not inconsistent, and that the owners could recover for injuries caused by the peculiar service in which the charterers quit the vessel. Judgment for the claimants. Both parties appeal.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed, and upon the same grounds, so far as the claimants’ appeal is involved. As to the defendants’ appeal, tbe judgment of the court below is also affirmed, hut the opinion does not discuss tho question involved nor assign a reason.
   Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, April 5, 1880.  