The balance of freight, and the charges referred to, are ,more than sufficient to pay the libelant's advances. ,Whether his claim 'be referred to the bond, or to the equitable transfer ofthe master's liens, involves only the rate of interest he should receive. In view Mall the circumstances. it is deemed just to confine ,the libelant to the ordinary rate of 6 per cent. Tbis, will leave a small balance of freight, to which the owners of the vessel,'whclhave intervened in the suit, are entitled. As the adjustment was necessary, and properly ordered, the fee of the adjustor is rightly charged. A decree will be prepared accordingly, and entered.' "
THE SAM BROWN. JOSEPH A,. STONlll. PHOENlX Co.
SAM BROWN and' 'another.
,January 6, 1687.)
1, COLLISION::':' STEAlfERS-RULEi/ NAVIGATION-:-Loss, 0; CARGO-DAlfAGES. , Where two steamerlil, each otherfrdmopp'osite directions, both failed to comply with a ruleofnaVlgation, and in consequence a collision en· sued, ina suit the two bo,ats, the damagesresQltlDg to, the owner of a cargoin the charge of one of them will be equally divided between the boats:
S.uOIl-MEAS1htEOF DAlfAGES. ", ,, '
Where a carg6is thus lost bya collision, in a suitagoainst thewrong·doer; standi,ng rela,t,iontc;> party injur.ell, th,",S, prevai,lin g rule is, to allow, qnly the aptual damages sustalDed at the tIme and place of the loss, with Intere'st thereon. ' , '"
AGAINST BOTH VESSEL!!. '
And ,thisla,t,t,er rule applie,s wliere.tor such loss, 'th"e"injured party elect!! to bring a joint sQitagainst two colliding boats, oneotwhich stands ill such contract relation to him, and the other not; the damages in such joint suit , being assessable on the footing of the marine tortifor>'which both boats are answerable. and not on the basis of the contract, to which one of the boats is ' , " , a stranger,.
In the case'of'carriers or others under contract to deliver goods, the measure of dama'ges for their loss ,in is their net market value at the place of the time when they should have jI,flived there.
In Admiralty. ' Knox & Reed, for libelant. : Barton & Sons, for the J. S. Fh'gtcilm, for the Stone.
ACHESON, J. , 1. It cannot be alleged seriously thatfhe collision here Inwas unavoi<lable.. Beyond contlloversy. itwas due to deed, each boat seeks exoneration by casting upon the other. The night wRs¢a,lm, clear, and bright. The boats were distinctly visible to each other "'hell at least a mile apart. The stage Of water waS not less than 12 and' the witnesses agree that there was ample room for the
THE SAM BROWN.
boats to pass each other safely. Why, then, the collision? A careful consideration of the proofs has brought me to the conclusion that both boats were in fault. The first rule governing navigation, and covering the case of steamers approaching each other from opposite directions, after prescribing the signals touching choice of sides, and declaring that pilots shall not attempt to pass each other until there has been a thorough understanding as to the side each steamer shall take, proceeds thus: "The signals fur passing must be made, answered, and understood before the steamers have arrived at a distance of eight hundred yards of each other." Had this rule been observed here, the collision would have been avoided. According to the weight of the evidence, direct and circumstantial,the boats were much less than 800 yards apart when the Stone gave the first signal for choice of sides. To that signal the Brown made no response. NeverthelesS the boats continued to approach each other until they were. within a distance of from 100 to 150 yards, and perhaps even less, when the pilot of the Brown, perceiving that a collision was imminent, gave the danger signals; but before the headway of either boat was stopped the collision occurred. I think neither boat observed due precautions to avoid the catastrophe, and both violated the provisions of the above-mentioned rule. Therefore both ·boats are responsible for the disaster, and the damages from the loss of the cargo of coke must between, them. The America, 92 U. S. 432. be divided. 2. In the case of carriers, or others under contract to deliver goods, the measure of damages for the loss thereof en route is their net market value at tile. place of destination, at the time when they should have arrived there; and such damages might have been recovered in a suit brought against the Brown alone, as that boat was under a towing contract to trarisport the coke to Louisville. But the libelant has elected to sue the two colliding boats together as jointly answerable, and it seems to me that in such joint suit no greater damages are allowable than could have heert recovered agail!.st the Stone had that boat alone been sued. In other words, the damages are to be assessed upon the footing of the marine tort, for which both boats are answerable, and not on the footing of a contract to which the Stone was a stranger. Now, wher,e the cargo islost in tra'lWitu by a collision, in a suit against the wrong-doer, standing in no contract relation to the party injured, the prevailing rule is to allow only the actual damages sustained at the time and place of the injury, with interest thereon. The Apollon, 9 Wheat. 362, 377; Smith v. Condry, 1 IJ.ow.28j2 Sedg. Dam. (7th Ed.) 351, note a. Such, in my opinion,is.the proper measure of damages here; and I am the more satisfied with this conclusion, because by that standard the insurance company (the libelant}and the owners of the coke settled the loss, the value at the time and place of the collision being $1,070.41. In the libel, as originally filed, the insurance company only claimed damages on that basis. That, I think, is the true claim, and a decree therefor will, under all the proofs,do substantial justice to everybody concerned. Let a decree be drawn in favor of the libelant for $1,070.41, with interest thereon from October 17,1885, and costs.
REPORTER. KARO. 1
TONS OF SULPHUR.
THE KARO tI.
Two. R UNDRED
(Diat1'iCt OQurt, E. D. Penn811lvania. 1886.)
1. CHARTER-PARTY-LIEN FOR FREIGHT AND ClIARGES IDmER''':'''FRAUDULENT
BILLS OF. L A D I N G . . .
Where the charterer of a ship, under a charter-party giving the 'owners a lien on any part of the cargo for all freight and charges named therein, issues, fraudulently, a bill of lading for the goods of a third party, who had no . knowledge of the charter-party, the goods so shipped .are subject to the lien given by the charter-party, where the master acted in good faith.
2.SAME-EF'FECT OF BILL OF LADING.
The acceptance of cargo, as by general ship, from one Ignorant of the fact the ship is chartered, orsjguing bills of lading inconsistent with the charter-party, would estop the against that part of the cargo so received,of any claim for freight; except that speCitiedin the bills ofiading.
In Admiralty. Morton P. Henry, for libelant. Driver &- Ooulstm, for respondent.
BUTLER; J. There is very little, if any, dispute between the parties respecting the facts. The libelant's statement is substantially correct, and is adopted by the court. ,It is as follows:
This was kUbel filed against part· of 600 tons' of sulphur shipped by the charterers at Palermo, for Philadelphia, in which the libelants seek to enforce the lien for the:balance due under a Charter-party between Tagliavia & Co., of Palermo, and libelants, as follows: r Charter-party freight, £1,224 ,J!'ifth port of loading, ' 50 ,Demurrage ltoS per indorsement of Taglia.,ia & Co. on the charter-paD;y at fifth port, . -. . 30 For proceeding from Boston to Philadelphia to deliver the sulphur attached, · .: · · · 150 Less freight collected at Boston, Balance due the ship, £1,454 960 .£494
The terms of the charter-party:, material to this question, are as follows: The vessel waS' tQ load at Adriatic ports and Sicily, in rotation, four places oI!ly, as ordered, and to proceed, tp Baltimore. Philadelphia, NEjw York, or Boston, one port only, as orderec;l, on signing bills of lading. Freight was a lump sum, £1,224. l.'he freight to be paid on unloading and rightdeliveryof the cargo, incasb, at current rate of exchange, for bankers' 60 days' sight bills on London, on the date of reporting at customs., less advanced. The charterers to have the option of ordering the vessel to a second northern port of discharge on payment of £150 additional. The captain to sign bills ofIad·
by C. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.