most bow of a buggy top in any desired point. The other bows were held in the desired point by means of another contrivance. The defendant sells children's carriages having a canopy top, rigidly secured to two rigid arms, one depending on each side of the carriage. These arms are pivoted at their lower ends to standards, rigidly fastened on each side of the carriage body. The arm's are pivoted by means of friction-plates and a thumb-screw, which causes the plate to which it is attached to relax or renew its grasp so that the top can be moved in any position, and may drop in front of the seat or behind it, or may be held in an upright or intermediate position. This friction device was known to be a substitute for the spring-latch and notches of the plaintiff's patent before its date. The difference between the plaintiff's and the defendant's carriage is that the former has a longer arm than the latter has, and is jointed to a metal casting, which is attached to the body, and which consists in part of a piece of metal in the shape of an arc of a circle, the periphery being provided with a series of notches, and each arm being provided with spring-bolts. The arms of the defendant's carriage are pivoted, by means of friction-plates and thumb-screws, to standards or castings firmly attached to each side of the carriage body. As the patented invention did not consist in the form of the pivoting device, but was broad enough to include equivalents of the described form, infringement is proved. There should be a decree for an injunction against the infringement of the first claim, and for an accounting.
February 18, 1855.)
(Dist1'l'ct Oourt, S. lJ. New York.
SEAMEN-COMPLETION OF VOYAGE-SHIPPING ARTICLES.
Libelants shipped as seamen on board the bark E., and signed articles for co a voyage from lquiqui, So. Am., to Hampton Hoads, for orders, and to any port or ports wherever the master may direct in the U. S. of America >I\' >I\' >1\'; the voyage not to exceed eight calendar months." At Hampton Hoads the vessel received orders for New York, where. on arrival, she discharged all her cargo. The libelants then left the vessel, and were entered in the log as deserters by the captain, who refuse,d in consequence to pay the balance of wages IIp to the time they left. Heid, that had there heen other par·ts of cargo to be delivered at other pOI'l.S, under orders received at Hampton Hoads, the voyage would not have terminated until the delivery of the residue of the cargo. As it was, the voyage provided for by the shipping articles terminated at. New York; the libelants were there entitled to their discharge, anJ could not be treated as deserters.
SAME-HATE OF WAGES.
One of the libelants shipped as second mate, but was afterwards justifiahly disrated. Held, that he was entitled only to the same wages as the other able seamen for the remainder of the voyage.
ARTICLES SOLD TO SEAMEN.
Articles sold to seamen by the master durin g the voyage are allowed as an
1Reported by R. D. & Edward Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.
offset to wages, at a rate not above 10 per cent. over the cost to the master. A charge in excess of that held unreasonable and oppressive. A.ct June 26,1884.
In Admiralty. Alexander cf: Ash, for libelants. John R. Walker, for claimants. BROWN, J. In January, 1884, the libelants shipped as seamen on board the bark Edwin, and signed shipping articles for "a voyage from lquiqui, So. Am., to Hampton Roads for orders, and to any port or ports wherever the master may direct in the U. S. of America or Dominion of Canada; the voyage not to exceed eight calendar months." The vessel proceeded to Hampton Roads, and there received orders to deliver the cargo in New York, where she arrived in June, 1884, and there discharged all her cargo. The libelants thereupon quitted the ship, taking their clothes with them. The master, claiming that the shipping articles bound them to the ship for eight months, entered tLem in the log as deserters, and refused to pay the balance of wages up to the time they left. The articles provided for only one voyage; not fOl' one or more voyages during eight calendar months. In my judgment the one voyage stipulated for was ended at New York. New York was the destination fixed by the orders at Hampton Roads; and by the delivery of all the cargo at New York the voyage became ended there. There remained nothing more for the ship to do to complete that voyage. Thenceforward the ship had to seek new employment and a new voyage. Had there been other parts of the cargo to be delivered at other ports, under the orders received at Hampton Roads, the voyage would not have been terminated at New York, nor until the delivery of the residue of the cargo at the various ports designated. The libelants were entitled to their discharge in New York, and cannot, therefore, be treated as deserters. Hendricks shipped as second mate at the rate of £6-6s. per month. He entered upon his duties January 25th. The testimony satisfies me that he was not competent for the proper discharge of the duties of second mate, and that he was justifiably disrated by the captain, according to the entry in the log on the eighteenth of February. After that date he is entitled to wages at the rate only of £3-10s., the wages of the other able seamen on the voyage. The articles sold to the seamen during the voyage, and charged against them in the master's account, are allowed at the prices charged, so far as these charges do not exceed an advance of 10 per cent. over the prices actually paid for them by the master. Ten per cent. is a reasonable compensation for his trouble, and the charges in excess of that are disallowed as unreasonable and oppressive. See Act June 26, 1884. The parties will probably be a"Jle to compute the amount due to the libelants lIpon the basis of this decision; if notl a reference may be taken for that purpose. 'fhe libelants are entitled to costs.
BARtLET'J: V. HIS IMPERIA.L :MA.JESty tHE SULtAN.
BARTLETT and others v. HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE SULTAN, etc.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. W AREHOUBEMAN-ADVERE'E
(''LAIMANTB OF GOODs-INTERPLEADER.
A warehouseman whose lien for storage is not disputed cannot maintain a bill of interpleader to protect himself against the claim of his bailor and that of a third person who asserts an adverse title to goods stored with him as against the bailor. but must defend himself at law.
Motion for Injunction pendente lite. W. W. Goodrich, of counsel, for complainants. Butler, Stillman et for defendants. Tkos. E. Stillman and Adrian H ..loline, of counsel. WALLACE, J. Complainants' motion for an injunction pendente lite is resisted mainly upon the ground that the complainants' bill is demurrable for want of equity. The bill shows that the complainants, as warehousemen, have in their possession a large quantity of arms, of the value of about $900,000, which were deposited with them by the firm of Drexel, Morgan & Co., and for which, in July, 1882, complainants, at the request of Drexel, Morgan & Uo., issued negotiable warehouse receipts; that shortly thereafter the defendant, the sultan of Turkey, claiming to be the owner of the arms, demanded them of complainants, and upon their refusal to give them up brought an action at law in this court for trover; that thereafter the American National Bank of Providence, claiming to be the holder of the warehouse receipts issued by complainants, demanded the arms, and upon complainants refusal to deliver them brought an action against them in this court. The bill also alleges that the Providence Tool Company and one Hunt claim some interest in the arms. The sultan, the American National Bank of Providence, the Providence Tool Company, and Hunt are made defendants in the bill, and the prayer is for jin injunction restraining all proceedings on the part of the defendants in relation to the arms, and that they be required to interplead. So far as appears by the bill, none of the parties claiming the prop- . arty in complainants' possession dispute complainants' lien for storage and charges. The complainants, therefore, have no interests of their own to assert or protect further than to be relieved from liability to two or more different claimants of the property. None of the defendants claim title derived from the complainants. The American National Bank derives title from the bailors of the complainants, and the other defendants assert a paramount title. 'fhe bill is a pure bill of interpleader, and presents the common case of a bailee who seeks to protect himself against the claim of his bailor and that of a third person who asserts an adverse title to the bailor. The authorities are decisive against his right to maintain an interpleader. It is sufficient to refer to Crawshay v. Thornton, 2 v.23F,no.6-17