THE HENRY FRANK.
the ·casefortria.l, extraordinary as it is,.' 'a;:ffords nG ground on which to refuse interest, because it was at all times open to the claimant to bring on the case. In the admiralty both parties are actors. Not ha"ingdone so, he is without ground to ask a refusal of interest. This exception is therefore overruled. The seventli exception is to ibe allowance of demurrage, on the ground that the libel makes no claim for demurrage. The libel claims damages to the amount of $600 and upwards, and fails to specify any of the items. This averment is sufficient to support a decree for the loss of time as well as -oosto£ repairs. It is evident that the elaimant was not misled. It was optional with him to obtain a more specific averment, by exceptions, if he desired. The remaining exceptions relate to the allowance of $140 as demurrage. These exceptions will be allowed. Upon the proof I do not think .the libellant entitled to any allOWance for demurrage. The decree will, therefore, be 'for the amount of the bill of repairs :and interest, being the sum of $626.33. I mark my disapproval of the delay on the part of the libellant to bring his cause to trial by l'efusing him costs.
THE HENRY FRANK.t
(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. November 17, 1881.)
TOWAGE, AS SALVAGE SERVICE.
Where a steam-boat valued at from $35,000 to t40,000 in a gale of wind broke from her landing in the harbor, and without any steam or other propelling machinery, and with only a watchman on board, drifted down stream to her own peril, and that of the shipping in the harbor, when two tugs went to her assistance, and towed her, after much trouble, to a place of safety, it was a salvage service, and $300 was deemed a just compensation,-three-eighths to the men and five-eighths to the boat.
Appeal in Admiralty. Joseph P. Hornor and F. W. Baker, for libellants. B. Egan, for claimants. PARDEE, C. J. Out of the conflicting evidence in this case enough can be ascertained to show that on the fourteenth of ·April, 1879, at about 9 o'clock P. M., the steamer Henry Frank, a large steam-boat,
.AiIswer filed December, 1867; cause tried February, 1880. tReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
worth from $35,000 to $40,000, in a gale of wind blowing at about 34 miles per hour, broke away from her landing in this harbor, and without any steam or other propelling ma,chinery, with only one man on board, was blown and drifted down the stream, to her own peril and the peril of other shipping in port. The watchman on board rung his bell for assistance, and two tugs, the N. M. Jones and the Maud Wilmot, went to her relief, got lines aboard, and towed her, after much trouble, in shore to a place of safety. The night was dark and the river rough; the service requested and rendered was valuable and necessary; and there was something more than ordinary risk and peril to the boats and men rendering the service. Yet the fact that the Canal-street ferry-tug Jerry was running, shows that the service can hardly be classed as dangerous. The evidence is conflicting as to which tug-boat first arrived, and which :r,:endered the most efficient service, but I do not think it necessary to go into the question. The ship was adrift and helpless, and the libellants rendered services in picking her up and landing her in safety, and there can be no doubt of their claim for compensation as salvors.· The district judge has allowed $300,-three-eighths to the men, and five-eighths to the boat, -and I see no reason to disturb his judgment, unless it should be as to the rate of distribution between the libelling boat and the crew; but this is not asked, and the rate may be just, considering all the circumstances. Let a decree be entered for the libellants the same as in the district court, and for costs in both courts. Both parties had appealed.
NOTES OF CURRENT DECISIONS
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Time-FractionS' of a.Day-Bonds in Aid of Railroads.
TOWN OF LOUISVILLE '0. PORTSMOUTH SAVINGS BANK, 13 Law Rep. 198. An election was held in a certain township in the state of Illinois on the second day of July, 1870, in which a donation was voted to be raised by special tax in aid of the construction of a railroad by the issuance of bonds. On the same day the people CJf Illinois voted in favor of the adoption of a new constitution, the second section of the fourteenth article of which was separately submitted, and is in these words: "No county, city, town, township, or other municipality shall ever become a subscriber to the capital stock of any railroad or private corporation, or make donations to or loan its credit in aid of any such corporation: provided. however, that the adoption of this article .shall not be construed as affecting the right of any such municipality, to make any such subscriptions where the same have been authorized under existing laws, by a vote of the people of such municipality prior to such adoption," The question in the case was whether the act of the town in voting for the issuance of the bonds was affected by the provision of the constitution which was passed on the same day that the vote was taken. The case was brought up to the supreme court in error to the circuijjcourt of the United States for the southern district of Illinois, and was decided in January, IB82, Mr. Justice Harlan delivering the opinion of the court affirming the judgment of the lower court, to the effect that the law does not, in general, take cognizance of the fractions of a day ; but courts may do so when substantial justice requires it. The section of the constitution above referred to went into operation on the second day of July, but it did not invalidate township bonds issued in aid of a railroad corporation pursuant to an election held on that day at an hour prior to the closing of the polls of the general election at which the people of the state voted on the adoption of the constitution-the bonds to be applied in discharge of a donation voted prior to said election, to be paid by special tax. W. J. Henry, for plaintiff in error. S. M. Cullom and T. C. Mather, contra. The cases cited in opinion were: Concord v. POlfRmfluth Say. Bank, 92 IT. S. 625; Fairfield v. Co. of Gallatin, 100 U. S. 50; Richards v. DOlJagho, 66 Ill. (765)