(District Oourt, E. D. Louiszana. Janualj";,1B82.)
After joining issue upon a libel in admiralty in rem, and filing 8 cross·bill for affirmative relief against the libellants in pe1'80llam, an exception or plea of the want of an admiralty lien cOpies. too, late.
A charter,party dsa maritime contract, and, /lsb.etweentb1l parties to it in a personal action, a court of admiralty has jurisdiction to determine the obli- . gations arising therefrom, and whether they have 'been violated.
In Admiralty.' H. Fl. Bryan, for libellant. E. W. Huntington and Horace L. Dufour,' for! defendant. BILLINGS, D. J. The libel avers the execution Of a charter-party by libellant and owners of the Fifeshire, .a refusal to comply, and prayss seizure and damages. There has been a seizure, an answer, and s cross-libel, wherein thEfmsster, on behalf of the owners, prays damages for a 'violation of other stipulations of the chaJiter-party. Subsequently the respondents filed the following exception: "Now into, eo,nrt come respondents herein, who except to the jurisdiction of this court ratione materia, and ask that the libel be dismissed, with costs. " . If, without any joining in this suit by the presentation of a cross-. claim for affirmative relief, the respondents had presented the ques" tion as to whether this charter-party created a ,lien upon the vessel. chartered, the matter presented would have been a proper subject to have been passed upon by an exception or a plea to the jurisdiction; for, in that case, there would have been no defendant except the res,) and whether the court had jurisdiction would have been dependent entirely upon whether the charter-party gave rise to a lien, i. e., whether a suit in rem could have been maintained. But now that the owners have appeared in the cause personally,. and as individuals have asked for affirmative relief, the controversy must go On to a determination. For there can be no doubt but that, the charter-party is a maritime contract, and that, as between the to parties to it, this court, as a court of admiralty, has determine the obligations arising therefrom, whether they have been violated, as to any damages suffered, by either party or both pa,rties, therefor.. As to whether the judgment and to pronounce
-Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
when rendered will enforce or recognize any lien is a qll Rtion per. taining to the form of judgment, and cannot, in this statt: of the cause, be dealt with. Exception overruled.
THE TIGER LILY.
(District OlJUrt, E. D. New York.
May 11, 1882.)
Where a canal-boat moored at a dock was sunk by the swell caused by a passing steamer going at a high rate of speed, held, that the steamer is liable in damages for the loss.
Oscar Frisbie, for libellant.
D. J. This action is brought to recover of the steamboat Tiger Lily for injury done to the canal·boat Mountain City by the suction of the Tiger Lily in passing. The accident occurred just abc>ve the High bridge in the Harlem river. The Tiger Lily was at the time upon a regular trip up the river, and abc>ut to land at a dock some 200 feet above the bridge, on the Westchester side of the river. The canal·boat, laden with coal, was moored above the bridge, on the New York side of the river, but below the steam-boat's landing, with her stern just clear of the bridge. The course of the Tiger Lily was through the middle arch of the bridge, past the place where the canalboat lay, and to her dock just beyond, the tide then being low. The canal·boat lay in water some nine feet deep. She was made fast by nine lines running in various directions, and, so far as I am able to discover, all necessary precautions were taken to enable her to resist any reasonable force of the water created by any passing steam-boat. WhEm the Tiger Lily passed, on the occasion in question, she created a suction so strong that the fastenings of the canal-boat were parted, her deck and combings being broken by the strain of the hawsers, and she thrown over upon the rocks about the abutment of the bridge and seriously injured. The force which broke the canal-boat adrift was the snction of the water caused by the action of the wheels of th. Tiger Lily, she being a side-wheel boat. No fault is to be found in the Tiger Lily for passing through the center arch of the bridge-'-no other course was open to her; but I must conclude, from all the cir· cumstances, that she was in fault for keeping up too great speed in passing the canal-boat.