THE AMBRIOAN .IIlA.GLlll.
'l'HE AMERICAN EAGLE.
(District Oowrt, N. lJ.lllinotl. March 8, 1884.) .
MARITIME LIEN-ASSJGNMENT OF DEBT.
A maritime lien passes to an assignee of the debt.
In Admiralty. W. G. Beale, for libelant. Schuyler et Kremer, for respondent. BLODGETT, J. This case comes before me at this time npon exceptions to the libel. The libel is filed by the assignee of the materialman who furnished the materials for repairing the tug, and who has assigned his claim to the libelant, who now seeks to enforce the lien of the material-man upon the tug. The exception to the libel 'is taken on the ground that the lien of the material-man does not accompany the claim into the hahds of an assignee. It is conceded, for the purposes of this case, that the person who originally furnished the material had a statutory lien which he could have enforced in admiralty; but it is insisted that the transfer of the debt waived the lien, or, at least, that it does not inure to tbe benefit of the assignee to whom the debt is transferred. There is no doubt llome seeming authority in support of the libelant's exception, but 'I ·think the more reliable and better considered cases are in favor of supporting the lien in behalf of the assignee, or giving him all the security which the original creditor had. In the case of The Barah J. Weed, 2 Low. fJ55, this question is exhaustively discussed, and the ities considered and analyzed by Judge LOWELL, who comes to the conclusion that all the rights of the original creditor cotne to the signee; that the lien is a part of the indebtedness and goes with it into the handsM whoever the original creditor shall' assign it to. After discussing the authorities, the judge says:
"The convincing reason is that given by Judge W A.RE in the case cited. that the debtor cannot be injured by an assignment, while the creditor will lose part of the benefit of his security if lIe cannot assign it."
The conclusion of this learned judge seems to me so satisfactory upon the question that I am content to accept his reasons without, adding any of my own. The exceptions to the libel are overruled, arid the report of the commissioner confirmed.
THB SPA.IN. t
E. D. NettJ York.
March 14, 1884.)
COLLISION IN 8LIP-CANAL-BOAT AND .PROPELLER-CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE.
A canal-boat, lying in the same slip with a steam-ship, fouled the screw of the steam-ship and received injuries which caused her to sink. On the part of the canal-boat it was alleged that the accident was due to the screw being put in motion before the steam-ship was unmoored, which created a cnrrent. The steam-ship denied that the screw had been put in motion,and claimed that the canal-boat had drifted with the tide against the screw. Held, the testimony being contradictory, that the case did not present such a preponderance of evidencein favor of the libelant as to allow it to be held that he had proven his case, and the libel was dismissed, without costs.
BENEDIOT, J. The libelant's canal.boat, lying in the same Blip with the steam-ship Spain, on the morning on which the steamer sailed, in May, 1882, fouled the Bcrew of the steamer, and there received injuries which eaused her to sink. The charge of the libelant is that before the steam-ship was unmoored her screw was put in motion in the slip, without notice or warning to the boats in the slip, and thereby a current created which forced the ,libelant'B boat upon the Bcrew while in motion. On the part of the steam-ship, it is averred that the Bcrew of the steam·ship was not moved prior to the accident, but that the canal-boat, through negligence, drifted by the tide upon the screw, the same hot being in motion, where she was injured by coming in contact with the screw at rest, and not by a blow from the Bcrew in motion. The testimony upon the point of the inquiry, namely, whether the screw of the steam-ship was in motion on the morning in question before the canal-boat got foul of the screw, contains contradictions that I have not been able to reconcile. I am satisfied that there ie misstatement or concealment on one side or the other, but the case does not present such a preponderance of evidence in favor of the libelant's account of the accident 8S will permit me to hold that he has proven bis case. I must therefore dismiss the libel. I give no costs.
J. A. Hyland, for libelant. , John Chetwood, for claimants.
tReported by R. D. & Wyl1ys Benedict, of the New York bar