'1'BJI B. LUOKBNBAOE.
collar with pads. This proposition is not urged, because the defendant uses no such collar. The contention on the part of the plaintiff, in order to succeed, must cover all use of detachable pads, or sweat-cloths with detachable pads, made so as to relieve sore or gall spots on the neck. Such was not the scope of the Bright patent, or if it had been, could he, within the rules of the patent law, have blocked the pathway for all contrivances, whereby such beneficial results could be effected? He must be held to his special device in connection with a horse-collar, as by him stated. The defendant does not sell any such horse-collar, but only sweat·cloths independent of the collar, more like the Meyer and Lovett patents, though not exactly the same as either. Hence, without formally deciding that the Bright patent is void for want of novelty and patentability, it must suffice that under no construction of the Bright patent can the defendant be held to have infringed the same. Bill dismissed with costs.
(Oircuit Court, E. D. New York. July 2,1884.)
TUG WITH 'DREDGE IN Tow-NEGLIGE:NCE IN STARTING SUDDENLY.
See head-note to same case in the district court, 15 E'ED. REP. 924. The de. cision of the the district court in the same case affirmed.
In Admiralty. Goodrich, Deady If Platt, for libelants and appellees. Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, for claimants and appellants. In this case the court (BLA.TCHFORD, Justice) made and filed the following findings of fact:
On or about the twenty-third of March, 1882, the libelants, being desirous of sending the dredge Brooklyn and nine scows from New York to Fall river, employed the steam-tugs Cyclops and Edith Beard (the latter being owned by the libelants) to tow them to that place. On the twenty-fourth of March, 18S2, the Cyclops became disabled by an accident, and the tow was taken into New London, and the tug E. Luckenback was employed by the libelants to continue the towage to Fall river with the Edith Beard. The E. Luckenback arrived at New London about half past 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the twentyeighth of March, 1882. The dredge was about 65 feet- in length and 33 feet in width. Her original width had been 27 feet, and she had been widened by pontoons, 3 feet in width being built on each side of her, her whole length. She was of the same width her whole length, and drew, as she was loaded, over 4 feet. At her stern as she was towed the timbers did not extend from side to side, but the pontoons were extensions, fastened to the side of the dredge without through timbers. In the extreme outer corner of each pontoon a post
1Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., Of the New York bar.
of yellowplne, 18 inches square, was set. The side timbers and planking, and the stern timbers and planking, were properly secured into the corner posts, The corner posts projected above the deck of the dredge. The construction of the dredge was not unusual or improp:,r. and the dredge was capable of standing all the usual risks and dangers of such a trip, both generally and in respect to tile cornel' posts and the use to which they were put on the occasion. In the dredge were an engine and boiler and machinery for dredging. The scows were from 50 to 60 feet in length, and were chiefly light. When the E. Luckenback arrived at New London she found the tow already made up. It had been made up by the libelants in such a way that at sea the dredge would be towed ahead of the scows, and the scows would ride in single file behind her. From each of the corner posts of the dredge, which, as she was towed. were on her after corners, a line ran to the forward part of the first scow behind. These lines were about 60 feet in length, and similar lines were run from each scow to the next succeeding scow. The E. Luckenback took the dredge and scows in tow by putting out a hawser, which belonged to the E. Luckenback, of about 100 fathoms in length, to the starboard bitts on the forward end of the dredge, and running a bridle from that hawser to the port bitts of the dredge. 'fhe hawser was parceled where the bridle crossed it, and the mode of towage was usual and proper. The Edith Beard made fast along-side of the dredge, and there assisted in the towage. leaving her position from time to time for the purpose of keeping the scows in line and transferring men, and lengthening the lines running from scow to scow. The tow left New London about 4 o'clock P. M., and proceeded without accident towards Fall River until midnight. It had then arrived at a place off Point Judith. Two days before there had been a strong southerly and easterly gale, which had raised heavy seas. This gale had been followed by a shore wind from the north, which had flattened the sea, but left a long roll. The sea was sufficiently heavy to put the strength of the dredge to the proof. and demonstrate its ability to endure any strain to which it could be properly subjected on the occasion in question. The speed which the E. Luckenback made with her tow was not over three miles an hour. While so proceeding, the hawser between the tug and the dredge chafed and parted. New hawsers were put out from the stern of the tug to each of the forward .:lorners of the dredge, and the tug thereupon started ahead suddenly, and too fast, Whereby the scows, which had drifted into great confusion on the port side of the dredge. WETe rapidly and violently swung astern, and pulled out the rear corner post of the dredge,-being the left-hand or in-shore one, as she was towed,-so that she sank and became a total loss, one man of her crew being drowned. The damage occurred through such negligence of the tug, and without the fault of the libelants. The amount of the damage is that reported by the commissioner in the district conrt. On the foregoing facts I find, as conelusions of law, that the tug is responsible for the damage, and that the libelants are entitled to a decree for $13.210.35, with interest from March 28, 18i:l2, and their costs in the dist"ict court, taxed at $771.05, and their costs in this court to be taxed. Accompanying the findings ;was the following opinion: BLATCHFORD, Justice. 'l'he reasonings and views and conclusions of the district judge in his opinion are satisfactory to me, and nothing is needed to add to their force. The new evidence on appeal does not furnish ground for. a different result. The damages fixed in the district court seem to be proper.
ADDIOKS V. THREE HUNDRED AND PInY-FOUR TONS CRUDE KAlIiIT.
THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTy-FOUR TONS CRL"DE KAINIT. 1
(Dis/n'el COJ/rt, S. D. New York.
DEMURRAGE-CrrSToM-DISCHARGE INTO J"IGIl'rERs-FAT.SE NonCE-REASON.AllL8 DILIGENCE.
It is the u,;age in the port of New York for ships loaded with kainit to discharge into lighters. Under this usage it is the ship's duty to wait for lighters a tune before discharging on the dock. The of the ship Cleopatm. loaded with kainit, Rent word to the consignees on January 11th that t.he ship was at the dock ready to discharge, and requested lighter; to be sent at once. 8he did nol reach the dock till the morning of the 12t'l, which was 8aturday. No lighter was sent till the 15th. The slup chllmt'd dcmurrilge for the 12th and the 14lh. The consi/!,'nees claimed that she was discharged in a reasonable time. Held, that false notice of readiness to discharge was no notice, and therefore the ship was not entitled to demurrage for the 12th. But the notice was sutlicient to have enabled the to have a lighter alongside on thl, 14th, and therefore the ship was entitled to demurrage for Ihatday. Held, also, that, under the usage to discharge into lighters, the ship had a right to d"mand that Iiglilcrs shall be brought al"ng-sille with reasonable diligence, and to receive aboard as fast as the ship can deliver, in the absence of special circumstances preventing; no fixed rate of tons per day being obligatory.
SAME-DISCHAHGE ON DOCK IN ABSENCE OF LIGHTER-LTABILITY THEUEFOR -CUSTOM.
The ship Carl, loaded with kainit, hegan to discharge into lighters. Having filled one lighter at 12 )[,. aud no other being then along-Side, shu hegan at 2 P. M. to discharge on the dock. Another lighter came lhe next morning. ilelcl that, in view of the absence of any fixed usage to dischfll'ge a parlicular number of tons per day, the ship had no right to begin to di<ch"rge on the dock without reasonahle and timely notiee of her intention; and that the slight delay in the commg of the second lightr,r did not justify the Carl in discharging on the dock; and that the consignee was entltled to the extra thereby occasioned him.
BROWN, J. 'rhe libelant, Addicks, clatms two days' demurrage for the detention of the ship Cleopatra, during Saturday and Monday, January 12, and 14, 1884, in discharging some kainit, part of the cargo of the ship. 'rhe ship arrived in New York on the seventh of Janllary, loaded with petroleum barrels above, and kainit (resembling salt) below. The ship was required by the charter to go to two different wharves to discharge. The bills of lading required each consignee, upon arrival of the ship, to give immediate notice of the dock to which she should go, in order to deliver their respective portions of the cargo. The claimant, accordingly, whose cargo was at the bottom, gave no-
Hill, Wing « Shondy, and H. Putnrrm, for libelants. Wileo:r, Ad"ms « Mlteklin, for claimants.
were two distinct but as the principles involved were similar, and the same proctors appeared in both cuses, only one opinion was written. In each case there was delay in getting lighters al<mg-side vessels which were ready to discharge. The Cleopatra waited for the lighters before dischaJ'ging, and then liheled the "argo for demurrage. The Oar! did not wait for the lighters, hut discharged on the dOCk, and was libeled for the extra expense occasiuned therclJy·.