The, Northern guilty offault in allowing to be pll\ced lapping. the starboard quarter of the Gardner Ilhead ()f her, On; the tow, and fast thereto, that when the boats were Btal'tedby the; tug towards the pier the Northern Liberty could effect no Qb,ange fin, her direction by using her helm as she moved towards the pier. It the Northern Liberty had been in her place behind the Gardner, instead of fast upon the Gardner's starboard quarter"she could have kept herBelfoff from the libellant's ,lioat,'as the testimony of the pilot of the Gardner Clearly shows. '," ,/Itwaa'not & fault in ,tbe ,tug ;tostllrrt the two boatstowar<Isth piers as Bhedid, for thepiloi of 'the; tug had direeted ,theimaster of the Northern,Liberty tQgetback *,ndhad the J;ight to suppose that his o1'<1or had; beene,beyed.Tbe the Northern Liberty, therefd.r6, is, alone; responsible for, the movement o£; hda:boat· towards the, piers, under llircumBtanoes; which made it impossiblejlor.himto sheer kis, bpat,:pff when he,found himself approaoh" ing dangerously near the libellant's boat. ,mha testimony of, the paokof,theGardner1tha$ he couldb,ave prevente'll the collision oy sheering his, boat.a.ndJJO' drawing the Northern Liberty off shore as they approached the libellant's boat, does not, upon the, Gardner I;tnyresponsibiJity for collision, for the Gardner, ,unde;r ,no tiol;l to -direc't ()f ,the Northern Liberty, and was guilty of no breach qf;d!Qiy PlY Qmittingso.tq dQ. The libel against the tug must be dismissed, and a decree entered' against the Northern for the daInageB and costs.
iI ,. "
's. D. :New York.
June 12, 1882.)
, ' ,
To entitle a libellant to recoter salvage compensation ,: the clR:im'lirit"lI veBsel'IDust be slloWn to have ,been in either actual or,appre· "banded danger st'the time the services'we,re.rendered.
2. PRACTICE-CoSTS. '
Where salvage compensation was (}laiQ1ed.for towage swer admitted the claimant's liability for a reason"ble towage the libellant recovered a reasonable sum for towage, without' costli,' and '1i'as adjudged to pay the United8tates marshal's costa.'
This was a libel filed by the master and owner of the City of Richmond, to recover $5,000 as salvage compensation for assistance rendered to the steam·boat Plymouth Rock, under the circumstances described in the opinion of the same court, reported in The Plymouth Rock, 9 FED. ReP. 413, 415, et seq. Lorenzo Ullo, for libellant. Sidney Chubb, for claimant·. BROWN, D. J. When the aid of the City of Richmond was requested by the captain of the Plymouth Rock, the latter, as I find upon the evidence, was neither in actual nor a.pprehended danger, being in tow of the Germania, which was fully able to take care of her. The request for aid was merely to expedite her passage and to take off her passengers for their more convenient landing. It is not, therefore, a case of salvage on the part of the City of Richmond. The libellant is entitled to a reasonable sum .for towage and taking passengers. If the parties do not agree, a reference on thatpoini may be taken. No costs up to this time are allowed, and the libellant should pay the disbursements on the arrest of the vessel. The SebaBtian Bach,
NOTE. This case is a corrected report of the same case, found ante, p. 634, which was inserted inadvertelltly before the return of the corrected proof from the judge who rendered the decision.
Patents for InventioDB-Automatic Devices.
. BRIDGE 'D. EXCELSIOR MANUF'G Co., U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri. The decision was rendered by the supreme court of the United States. Mr. Justice B,'adley delivered the opinion of the court affirming the decree: Cam movements, and others of like character, producing simultaneous operations, according to the needs of the case. such as opening valves on a steam-engine, are in such common use that it requires but little invention to adapt them to a particular case; and, when used for an automatic device, the patentee is only entitled to the precise device which he has described and claimed in his patent. Robert H. Parkinson, for appellants. S. S. Boyd, for appellees.