842 FEDBBÀIi REPORTER. �unless answered by counter proof, was altogether sufiScient to justify the allowance of sueh payments. �So, also, as to the damages for detention of the vessel. Demurriage, as such, is not claimable; but why may not a rate of demurrage, fixed by the vessel's charter and estab- lished by the rules of the maritime exchange, and whieh, therefore, would have been conceded to her if delayed by her charterer, be taken as a measure of fair compensation for a similar loss caused by the act of a wrong-doer ? I think the commissioner rightly received the evidence, and that it justi- fied bis conclusion from it. �There must be, therefore, a decree in favor of the libellant, and against the respondent and his stipulator, for $1,973.04, with interest from December 15, 1877, to this date, and costs. ���Clayton and others v. The Sohooneb Eliza B. Emobt �(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey, November 10, 1880.) �1. Pakt Ownbrs— Kemovai. of Master.— The majority in Interest of �the owners of a vessel have the power to remove the master, whather he be a part owner or not, and to resume possession of such vessel at their own pleasure. �2. Same— Same— "Written Agheement.— In the case of a part owner �only a 'written agreement, entitllng such part owner to possession, can defeat the exercise of such right. �6. Same— " Bailing Right "—Estoppel.—Spbcifio Performance.— A contract for the sale of a " sailing right " by the part owner of a ves- sel is not susceptible of specifie enf orcement, either by way of estoppel or by a direct proceeding for that purpose. �4. Same—Same — Breach — Bemedt. — The only remedy for a breach of such contract, if any, is an action for damages. In the Matter of the Schooner Eliza B. Emory, 3 Fed. Rep. 241, r«- ���Appeal by libellants from the decree of the district court in admiralty. �Flanders e Grey, for libellants. J. Warren Coiiston, for claimants. ����
