the Amoskeag Company knew that they might be sued at any time, but believed that they could not be sued with effect. Under sucl:. circumstances a court of equity might well decline to give any extraordinary assistance to patentees who had remained quiet for years; but in the cases of that sort, in which equitable relief has been refused, the courts have said that the plaintiff must be left to such damages as he might obtain at law. This is laches, and not estoppel; and for laches the remedy at law is found in the statute of limitations, and if that statute is inadequate there is no other remedy. The same remark, I apprehend, is true of the damages. The hardship which these plaintiffs apprehend appears to arise from the very large damages which are claimed by the patentees. The record before me does not show the grounds of this claim. Supposing it to be, as intimated at the argument, that the regular license fee would be an annual payment, the equitable complaint is that the city was permittted to use the improvement for so many years without notice. This would apply, in a greater or less degree, to all cases of laches; and if the court and jury are incompetent to deal with it, I know of no power ina court of equity to set a limit to the damages which a court of law shall award under such circumstances. Inj unction refused.
THE CHARLES THE AGNES
(District Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. May 14,1883.)
PILOTAGE-CONSTITu'rIONAI, LAW-AuTHORITY OF STATE.
Where, by a statute of one state, vessels bound to a port of that state were free from the obligation of compulsory pilotage when not spoken outside of a certain line, sHeha statute has no application to pilot services tendered by a pilot licensed under the laws of another state situated on the same river.
SAME-DELAWARE STATUTE, IMPOSING OBLIGATION TO COMPULSORY Pn.OTAGE UPON VESSELS BOUND TO THE PORT OF PHILADELPHIA, CONBTIlUED.
A pilot, licensed by the state of Delaware, may, by a libel m rem, recover the fees provided by a Delaware statute for pilot services tendered to a vessel on a voyage from a foreign port up the bay and river to the port of Philadelphia, after the vessel had crossed a straight line drawn from Cape May light to Cape Hen]open light, although such services were refused, and not. withstanding a statute of Pennsylvania exempted an such vessels from the duty of taking a pilot, and in case such service was accepted and performed,
*Reported by AlberL B. GUilbert, Lsq., of the Philadelphia bar.
THE CHARLES A. SPARKS.
prescribed a lower rate of compensation than that provided by the Delaware statute. l?te mymene, 9 FED. REI'. 165, and 12 .FED. R!U'. 846; and l'he Alzena, 14 FED. REP. 174, followed.
Hearing on Libels and Answers. These were two libels by John P. Virden, a pilot licensed under an act of the state of Delaware, approved April 5, 1881, claiming the fees prescribed by that act for his services as a pilot tendered to and declined by the schooner Agnes R. Bacon and the brig Charles A. Sparks, on their way from a foreign port to the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The answers set forth that when the libelant tendered his serVIces the vessels had crossed a straight line drawn from Cape May light to Cape Henlopen light, and were by the laws of Pennsylvania, to one of whose ports they were bound, exempt from the obligation of.taking a pilot, as provided by the act of the eighth of June, 1881, which is as follows: "A deduction' of 10 per centum from the rates mentioned in section 1 shall be made when the vessel is first spoken by the pilot inside 0181 straight line 4rawn from Cape May light to be exCape Henlopen light; but the vessel shall in every such empt from the duty of taking a pilot on her voyage inward to the port of Philadelphia, and the vessel, as well as master, owner, agent, or consignee, shall be exempt from the duty of paying pilotage or bali pilotage, or any penalty whatsoever, in case of her negleot or refusalso to do;" and denied the right of libelant to recover any part of the fees claimed; but that, if entitled at all, no more than the rate allowed by the Pennsylvania act for the performance of such servioes could be recovered. Curtis 'Tilton and Henry Flanders, for libelant. H. G. TYard and M. P. Henry, for respondents. BUTLER, J. I do not find anything in this case that does not Beem to be fully covered by the decisions in The Alzena and The Clym.ene,· and the claim must, therefore, be allowed.
The attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania afterwards filed in the supreme court of tbe United States a copy of tbe record in the above case of The Charles A. Sparks. with a suggestion that the admiralty court of this district hath no jurisdiction to impose 0'1 vessels bound to tbe port of Philadelphia a lien or privilege, by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware; anti prayed for a writ of prohibition to be directed to the judge of said dis-
trict to prohibit him from further proceeding in the said cause; and from proceeding to make or enforce any decree by execution or otherwise in said cause. Whereupon; on June 13, 1888,a rule to show cause was entered by
In re WRlCH'r, Petitioner.
(District 8. D. York. May 26,1883.)
1.. VESSEL-PROCEEDS OF SAlJE-LIEN. WREN LOST. Where a vessel is sold and the proceeds paid into the registry, the shares of the different owners oithe surplus are equitalily liable prQ rata for the payment of any additional liens upon It. 2. S.hm...;..EQuITABLE HELEAsE; "Where a pereou, I)ayiugsuch liens,pllrposely delays tiling his claim the remnants until the shares of the owners.,llli.ve been drawn out, and then Jiles it in order to charge tIle whole upon the remaining shares, held, that such Withholding is equivalenHd a'releaseof the shiues withdrawn and a dis, charge .of the lien '[fI'fI tanto; the ''remaiIHn-gr ·share$ arc ·only. chargeable with their duepr\lportion ofthe claim filed., 3. CHARGED. . . The 'costs of the prevailing party are ordinarily treated as a legal incident of the debt/and; like the debt, Paid' out of the fund, thOugh subsequent lienors jl.' prejudiced. thereby; .but where, the action is unreasonably defended, '. costs in admiralty, as, in eqUity, may, in the discretion oithe court, be imposed personally on the litigating parties, 4.' SAME-PART OWNEREt ,Part· owners of vessels have's right to litigate s doubtful claim against the 'Vessel. When thll. defense rerlsonah,le, bonn .tide. and in part successful, the libelant's costs should be imposed, not upon those defending personally, but 'upon the proceeds of the vessel.
In Admiralty. Beebe, Wilcox et Hobbs, for petitioner. Gibson, Whiting d; Parkin, for respondents. BltGWN, J. Upon the sale under the decree, in the case of The J. G. Williams, 15 FED. REP. 558, there was a. Burplus of $8,946.43 in the registry after paying the amounts decreed to the libelant. Wright, as receiver of Brett, Son & Co., held a mortgage upon five-eighths of the vessel sold, and had previously presented and proved bis claim to that proportion of the surplus, which was less than the mortgage debt, and the owners of the remainingthree·eighths of the vessel had proved their claims. The proceeds of the sale of the vessel were paid into the registry of the court on the fourteenth day of February, 1883, and the amount due the libelant was drawn out on that day. Wright, as receiver, immediately thereafter obtained an order for the