m'cONNOCBIE V. EEBB. 57 �on October 4th the S3,000, with $25.75 for costs, were paid to the proctors of the libellants in the former action, and the following receipt therefor was given «pon discontinuance of that action: �[Title of cause.] "Received from the Pacific Mail Steam-ship Company the sutn of $8,025.75, the amount agreed upon in settlement o£ the above- enti tled action ; the fees of the offlcers of the courts to be paid by the claimants. �New York, Octaber 4, 1880. Jas. K. Hill. �" AViNG & SiiouDY, Proctors for libellants." �From these facts it appears unmistakably, by the very tarins of the award,— (1) That the olaim of salvage was disallowed, and that, by consequence, all claims of the crew upon the moneys awarded were excluded, and intended to be excluded ; (2) that the award of |3,000 was made to the sole use of Kerr, as owner of the vessel, and as com- pensation for a towage service only, and not for salvage; (3) that the allowanee of $3,000 was made upon the basis of this lower grade of service as towage, and not upon the more remunerative basis of salvage ; (4) it also appears that the terms and intent of the award were made known to the parties to it, that they acquiesced in it, and that the moneys in question were paid to Kerr in execution of it.- �A settlement thus made is binding upon the parties to it. Neither side, as against the other, can afterwards legally or equitably assert any claims at variance with its intent or legal effect. ihough the service rendered might be subsequently adjudged to be a salvage s'erv- ice, in proceedings by other persons interested, Kerr could claim no benefit from any share in the compensation that would have been awarded to him as owner, though it might be much larger than that received in his settlement; uor could the owners of the Colon claim any protection or indemnity from Kerr against the claims of any other persons not bound by the award and settlement. Nor can the court vary the amount of compensation awarded; but, as it was made upon the basis of a towage service only, it must be presumed to have been much less than would have been awarded to Kerr upon the basis of a salvage compensation. The Emily B. Souder, 15 Blatchf. 185. �As this court cannot directly set aside or vary the terms of the award and settlement, so it cannot do so indirectly at the suit of others by compelling Kerr to share with them the money which was paid to him for his own separate interest as owner, unless others have a clear legal right in the fund, and no other legal remedy ex- ists. For if they still have other adequate remedy against the Colon for their compensation, the right of Kqrr to the f ull benefit of the settle- ��� �
