the lines were not yet fastened the Easton could not move. The fault of the Eagle clearly was inattention to the Easton in time, and the unwarranted supposition that she was ready to move, and get out of the way. 2. I do not think the Easton can be charged with fault. As I have said, she was substantially at rest. Sbe was as helpless as a vessel at anchor, as she could not move without endangering her tow, which was only partly fastened. She was in no fault in making up her tow in the customary place, and in the usual manner. All the details of this process were familiar to the pilot of the Eagle. She was far enough away from the end of the pier to allow reasonably sufficient room for any boats having occasion to go inside of her to do so without danger. She was not, therefore, an unlawful obstruction to navigation, nor did she interfere wit.h the customary use of that part of the river which is devoted by law to the use of tugs and tows. She had a right to do precisely what she was doing; and, as she was helpless for the time being, the whole duty of keeping out of the way devolved on the Eagle. Being in full view of all approaching vessels, and at a sufficient distance to enable them to keep away from her while getting her tow in readiness to move. her pilot had no reason to suppose the Eagle would not go on one side or the other of him. When he saw the Eagle coming towards him, and not :lhanging her course, he hailed her to keep off. 'fhere was nothing that he could do more, since he could not safely move forward or back. There is no ground for holding the Easton in fault. Being at rest, it was not her duty to signal with her whistle to the other tug. If she had done so, by giving either one blast or two blasts, when she was unable to move, she would thereby have misled the Eagle; because such a signal would be telling her, in effect, that the Easton was going to move either to starboard or to port. whereas she could not do either. If any Flignals were to be given, it was for the Eagle, as the vessel in motion and in command of herself, to give the signal; and no signals were given. The most appropriate answer to any signal from the Eagle would have been several short blasts, to indicate danger. In the case of The Sunnyside, 91 U. S. 208, the circumstances were wholly different. The steamer was not at rest, but drifting at the rate of a mile and a half an hour in the night.time, with her helm lashed down; nor was she incumbered by a tow, 80 as to prevent ber moving. 3. The libelant's boat had been long in use, and there is considerable conflict as to her value and soundness. Upon the best judgment I can form upon this point I think she was worth about $400, for which sum, and costs, the libelant may take a decree against the American Eagle, unless a reference be desired. As against the Easton, the libel should be dismissed; but as its answer presented claims which were not sustained, the dismissal in her case must be without costs.
THE SILICA 11. THE LORD WORDEN.
THE SILIOA v. THE LORD WORDEN and another.1 THE LORD WORDEN v. THE SILICA and another.
(DisW'ict Oourt, E. D. Pennsul'Dania. March 23. 1886.)
Where a vessel in the tow of a tug runs into another vessel, partl,. through the negligence of the tug and partly through the improper positIOn of the vessel run into, held, that damages and costs could be recovered against both.
In Admiralty. Oharles Gibbons, for the Silica. Henry R. Edmunds, for the Lord Worden. Alfred Driver and J. Warren Ooalston, for the Protector.
BUTLER, J. As is usual in collision cases, we have here a great mass of conflicting testimony. The statements of witnesses from the respective vessels are contradictory and irreconcilable, to such extent as to make a satisfactory conclusion difficult of attainment from this testimony alone. Fortunately the case does not rest on this testi. mony. There are several well established facts, about which little if any controversy exists, that furnish a reasonably safe guide to the truth. Immediately after the collision the Lord Worden was lying on the range of lights. Attention was called to this fact at the time, and it was observed by all present. It is testified to, substantially, by the Lord Worden's witnesses. Unless, therefore, the Silica's blow changed her location, she was there when struck. That the blow did not change her location, is shown by the answers of the assessors. That it would not, must, I think, have been inferred in the absence of this testimony. The relative weight of the vessels, and the character and position of the blow, seem to forbid any other inference. The con· elusion that the Lord Worden was lying, substantially, on the rangl, of lights is therefore, not only reasonable, but unavoidable. That this was a fault is equally clear. She had no occasion to lie there. As the assessors state, and the chart shows, she could have anchored elsewhere, with safety. Her anchorage there, directly on the track of navigation, after night, was a plain violation of law and duty; and this fault contributed immediately to the disaster. It is not important, in this respect, that the tow might have passed safely by the exercise of such care as the occasion required. But for the ship's fault, the disaster would not have occurred,-would have been virtually impossible. Had she been anchored to one side, as she should, no danger would have been encountered, for the tow was moving, virtually, on the range.
by C. B. Taylor, Esq.; of the Philadelphia bar.