Following a collision in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 1951, between the Esso Suez and the Esso Greensboro, two steamships owned and operated by the Esso Shipping Company, in which there was heavy loss of life and injuries to many persons, besides large property loss, the Esso Shipping Company October 4, 1951, filed in this court its petition for exoneration from and limitation of liability, Title 46, §§ 183 to 189, U.S.C.A., and Admiralty Rule 51 et seq., 28 U.S.C.A. All claims of persons for death, personal injury or property loss arising out of such collision and filed herein as required by the court have been settled by petitioner, except approximately two claims. Claims for salvage, however, have not been settled, but are disputed, and this is a hearing on the claims of numerous persons against the Esso Greensboro, and her owners and operators for salvage.
The facts are substantially as follows:
(a) The Esso Shipping Company, for brevity called petitioner, was before, on, and after April 20, 1951, the owner and operator of steamships, etc., including a number of tank steamers, which were used in transporting petroleum products, usually between ports on the Gulf of *135Mexico and ports on the Atlantic Ocean. These included the Tank Vessel Esso Suez, the Tank Vessel Esso Greensboro, the Esso New York, and the Esso Burlington.
(b) The Tank Vessel Esso Greensboro, of 10,195 gross tonnage, left Corpus Christi, Texas, on the Gulf of Mexico, April 19, 1951, with a full cargo of West Texas crude oil, bound for an Atlantic Ocean port. The Tank Vessel Es-so Suez, of 17,061 gross tonnage, left Baltimore, Maryland, on April 10, 1951, without cargo, bound for Corpus Christi, Texas. At about 4:20 A. M. on April 20, 1951, there was a collision in the Gulf of Mexico between the Esso Suez and the Esso Greensboro, followed by explosions, fire, and the partial destruction of both vessels, etc. There was large loss of life among and injuries to the officers and crew of the two vessels. Also large property loss. The details are set forth in the margin.1
(c) The United States Coast Guard and shipping generally, including many vessels of various types, and including the Esso New York and Esso Burlington, owned by the Esso Shipping Company, took part in an effort to rescue survivors, to discover and recover the bodies of the deceased, and in an effort to recover and save property. Among the vessels which took part was the S.S. Virginia, not owned by the Esso Shipping Company, but owned by the National Bulk Carriers, Inc.
(d) The National Bulk Carriers, Inc., owner of the S.S. Virginia, filed a claim for salvage, but that has been withdrawn, and the remaining claimants are, all or some of the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia,2 all or some of the officers and crew of the Esso New York,3 *136and all or some of the officers and crew of the Esso Burlington.4 Such claims are against the Esso Greensboro and against petitioner, as her owner and operator.
(e) It is undisputed that the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia on the night of April 20-21, 1951, extinguished the fire on the Esso Greensboro, recovered approximately fifteen bodies of deceased persons thereon, made the necessary repairs or preparation to enable the Esso Greensboro to be towed, and thereafter towed the Esso Greensboro into the Port of Galveston, Texas.
(f) The second point made in petitioner’s brief is as follows:
“The details of the firefighting operation indicate that the fire was comparatively simple to bring under control and extinguish.”
I think and find that this statement is inaccurate. The Esso Greensboro carried a cargo of crude oil, and the firefighting operations were difficult and very dangerous.
(g) As has been stated, the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia, after the fires on the Esso Greensboro had been extinguished, towed her into the Port of Galveston, Texas. On the way, the bodies of the deceased seamen were removed by Petitioner from the Esso Greensboro. Petitioner in its brief says:
“The towing operation proceeded with the minimum of difficulty to be expected under the circumstances.
“The Virginia improperly refused the assistance of a salvage tug, resulting in a substantial prolongation of the towage time.”
This view is unsupported by the evidence, except that the weather was probably good. The preparation for the towing and the towing were difficult and at times dangerous. The statement of the matter in the brief of one group of claimants, beginning when the fire was extinguished, is substantially correct.5 *137The towing time was not prolonged by any action of the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia.
(h) Petitioner says in its brief:
“The apparent lack of good faith on the part of the salvors is a fac *138 tor to be considered' by the Court and will cause a substantial diminution in any award to be made for the services rendered.”
*139The evidence does not support this view. I find that neither the officers nor the crew of the S.S. Virginia were guilty of bad faith, but that they acted throughout in good faith. '
^ (i) Petitioner says in its brief.
‘ The' Esso Greensboro was not a derelict.”
I find that at the time the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia first sighted the Esso Greensboro, about 7:30 P.M., April 20, 1951, the Esso Greensboro had been abandoned by petitioner and her owner, and was and continued to be a derelict;
q-) There was no previous relation, contract or otherwise, between the S.S. Virginia or her owners, officers, and crew, and the Esso Greensboro, her owners, officers, and crew. The officers and members of the crew of the S.S. Virginia were volunteer salvors in undertaking to extinguish the fire on the Esso Greensboro, to save any survivors, and *140to recover the bodies of the dead, and bring the Esso Greensboro and her cargo into a safe port. Their undertaking terminated in success.
(k) The value of the property saved has been stipulated to be $1,000,000.6
(l) There are other stipulations. No good purpose would be served by copying them here, but they are adopted and referred to and may be quoted, wholly or in part, here.
(m) Neither the officers nor the crew of the Esso New York did anything in the matter of extinguishing the fire on the Esso Greensboro nor in salvaging the Esso Greensboro. They did rescue four members of the crew and recovered the bodies of two members of the crew of the Esso Greensboro.7
(n) Neither the officers nor the crew of the Esso Burlington did anything in the matter of extinguishing the fire on the Esso Greensboro nor in salvaging the Esso Greensboro. They did, however, rescue one person and recover the body of one person who were members of the crew of the Esso Greensboro.8
1: The question of whether the Esso Greensboro had been abandoned by petitioner and was a derelict is one of fact. Belcher Oil Co. v. Griffin, 5 Cir., 97 F.2d 425. The finding is that it had been abandoned and was a derelict.9 But petitioner says that under the facts here, it should be held, as a matter of law, that the Esso Greensboro had not been abandoned and that she was not a derelict.
While it is true that where a vessel is found deserted or abandoned at sea in a situation of peril, with no living person aboard her, she will be regarded as prima facie a derelict, I think the intention of her owners would have weight and should be inquired into.
Petitioner apparently contends that the intention of the petitioner with respect to the abandonment of the Esso Greensboro may be determined, or largely determined, by the action of the Esso New York and Esso Burlington, owned by petitioner. The Esso New York arrived near the Esso Greensboro about 10:00 A. M., April 20, 1951. After res*141cuing some survivors, she, on information received, assumed that there were no survivors on the Esso Greensboro and left the vicinity of the Esso Greensboro. She selected as her task and devoted her entire attention to the Esso Suez.
The Esso Burlington, when she arrived on the scene about 3:00 P. M., April 20, 1951, rescued one survivor and recovered one body, and also assuming, from information received, that there were no other survivors on board the Esso Greensboro, selected as her task the rescue of other survivors and the recovery of bodies in the water. There is no criticism of this action of the two vessels, but it shows that the officers and crew of neither vessel had any plan or intention of doing what was necessary and essential to be done, and what the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia did, i. e., go on board the Esso Greensboro, ascertain whether there was anyone alive thereon, extinguish the fire, recover the dead bodies, and tow the ship into harbor. The part the Esso New York and Esso Burlington took is substantially correctly stated in the quotation in the margin from petitioner’s brief.10 I quote also in the margin a fairly accurate statement in the brief of one group of claimants of the movements of the Esso New York.11 Also I quote in the margin from the same brief a *142fairly accurate statement of the movements of the Esso Burlington.12
I think the facts here show as a matter of Law that the Esso Greensboro had been abandoned and that she was a derelict. The mere fact that petitioner may have had a vague intention to obtain assistance for the vessel, or a mere general hope or a mere general intention to ultimately rescue her, is not sufficient to prevent her from being regarded as a derelict. 'There must have been a reasonable expectation, prospect and hope of petitioner boarding the Esso Greensboro, extinguishing the fire, and towing her to port, etc. There was not. Consideration of the cases which petitioner cites does not change this view.13
. Petitioner claims that the Esso New York and Esso Burlington had constructive possession of the Esso Greensboro.14 I do not think so.
*1432: The facts clearly show that-'those claimants who are officers and crew óf the' S.S. Virginia are entitled to recover salvage. The statement of the facts in the brief-of one group-of salvage claimants as to the' activities of the officers and crew of thé 'SA Virginia-beginning - ábout 7:’30 P. M., April 20,- -1951, is sub-stantially correct.15
A • non-contractual salvage service is one which is voluntarily ren*144dered. The service here was voluntarily rendered. It must be effective and beneficial. It is undisputed that the service by the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia was effective and beneficial. The salvage service may be either a “low *145order” or a “high order”, etc. Here it was “high order”. The character of the salvage service is to be considered in the light of conditions existing at the time of performance. The evidence fully shows such conditions and fully sustains the conclusion that the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia are entitled to reeover salvage.16
3: Petitioner charges the officers and crew of the SS “Virginia” with bad faith. I do not think nor find that there was bad faith or lack of good faith on the part of the officers and crew of the SS “Virginia.”17 Their purpose first of all was to rescue any person who might still be alive on the Esso Greensboro, to recover the bodies of the dead *146thereon, and to extinguish the 'fire thereon and save property.18 As I listened to the testimony and particularly to the testimony of Chief Officer Bowin, giving his experience and that of the 14 men with him who first boarded the Esso Greensboro, I became convinced and am still convinced that none of the claimants who were on the S.S. Virginia were of the type depicted in petitioner’s brief.19
A study of the authorities cited by petitioner20 convinces one that the facts in each case must be looked to in deciding as to good faith. I think there is no bad faith here.
4: Petitioner also charges that the S.S. Virginia improperly refused the assistance of a salvage tug, resulting in a substantial prolongation of the tow-age time. The wording of this complaint will be found in the margin.21 I have heretofore found the facts to be to the contrary.
Discussing now the legal effect of the refusal of assistance. It will be observed that the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia put out the fire on the Esso Greensboro on the night of April 21st, completing the work early in the morning of April 22nd. A number of hours later, representatives of Petitioner proposed to “take over” the Esso Greensboro. The authorities cited by petitioner22 are unconvincing that under these facts the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia were required to surrender *147possession of the Esscv Greensboro or that their right to salvage was affected thereby.
5: This brings us to the question of the amount of salvage which should be paid to the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia who are claiming salvage. The cases cited by the parties23 are helpful, but none of them clearly point the way in the case we have here of the officers and crew of the S.S. Virginia in mid: ocean boarding a burning vessel, searching for survivors thereon, extinguishing the fires, making changes and repairs necessary to make in order to tow her to port, and towing her to port. As stated, the value of the Esso Greensboro as salvaged was, according to agreement, $1,000,000.
(a) I conclude that there should be what may be called a basic award to each unlicensed member of the crew of the S.S. Virginia who are Claimants herein, and an additional award to such members of the crew as were in great danger or - performed difficult or dangerous 'service or tasks. Such basic awards are shown in the margin.24
(b) In addition to such basic award;, an award of $5,000 is made to each of the 14 men who are claimants herein who first left the S.S. Virginia in a life*148boat and either remained in the lifeboat or went aboard the Esso Greensboro and extinguished the fire, ascertained that there were no survivors, but discovered the dead bodies, etc. Such additional award to such 14 men is shown in the margin.25 Six of the 14 men served on board the Esso Greensboro after the fire had been extinguished and are still awarded an additional $500 each.26 Two men who were not of the group of 14 men served on board the Esso Greensboro after the fire was extinguished and are awarded $500 in addition to such basic award.27
(c) I conclude that there should be an award to each claimant herein who was an officer of the S.S. Virginia, and, that in making such award, the responsibility of such officer for the safety of his fellow officers, the members of his crew, and his vessel should be considered. Also 'there should be considered the danger in which such officer was placed and any dangerous or difficult service or tasks performed by him. Such award is made as shown in the margin.28
Edward J. Kramer $500; Jay (Dee) Williams $500.
6: On the question of the right of those claimants herein who are officers and crew of the Esso New York and who are officers and crew of the Esso Burlington:
As shown by the Findings of Fact, such officers and crew had no part in extinguishing the fire on the Esso Greensboro and towing it into port, i. e., in the salvaging of the property which was saved. They claim, however, the right to salvage by reason of having saved the lives of 5 members of the crew of the Esso Greensboro and recovering 3 bodies. In the absence of a statute, they would not under the facts be entitled to salvage. Under the Statute, Sections 728 and 729, Title 46 U.S.C.A., they are entitled to salvage.29
The officers and crew of the Esso New York who are claimants herein are allowed salvage in the sum of $2¡000, to be divided equally among them.30
The officers and crew of the Esso Burlington who are claimants herein are allowed salvage in the sum of $2,000, to be divided equally among them.31
Let decree be prepared and presented in accordance herewith.