BISSELL V. STEAM-TUG ALEXANDER.
libellees, that the vessel could be taken from the master and part owner by his co-owners. No pertinent authority, nor any persuasive argument, is submitted in support of this denial, and I adjudge it untenable in law. And, lastly, it was denied by the answer, and contended at the hearing, that no sufficient demand for possession was made by the libellants prior to the filing of the libel and the seizure of the brig, and that, therefore, upon this ground alone-supposing it to be the only point of defence raisedthe court should pronounce for the libellees. To this the libellants make answer-First, that by no law or well-settled, invariable practice is it required that a demand of possession be made before a seizure in a cause of possession instituted by the majority owners; and, second, that if a demand were necessary the facts in proof, by the captain's testimony and admissions upon the witness stand, and written documents exhibited and referred to, show and prove a demand and refusal, which the court, sitting in admiralty, should adjudge to be, under the circumstances, sufficient as matter of law or matter of fact. In this second answer of the libellants I concur, and thus render it unnecessary to pass upon their first answer. It results that I must pronounce for the libellants; and, as regards costs, must adjudge that neither party recover costs of the other.
BISSELL t1. THE STEAM-TUG ALEXANDER.
(District Goun, E. D. New York. July 16,1880.)
1. CoLLlBION-CANAL-BoA'l' IN Tow OF TUG-NEGLIGENOE OF CAPTAIN OF BOAT.-The owner of a tug, originally built for a pleasure boat., sent her to tow a canal-boat, loaded with ice which he had bought, through New York harbor. The tug being very small, and the boat large and heavy, a man was put at the helm of the boat by her captain to steer. On the way down the bay a collision occurred, in which the boat was injured, and her master libelled the tug for damages. Held, that upon the evidence the of the canal-boat must be held responsible for the steering of his boat, and therefore the tug was not responsible for 1'1e collision that ensued.
T. C. Campbell, for Bissell. Beebe, Wi.lcox <t Hobbs, for steam-tug Alexander.
BENEDICT, D. J. The admitted fact that the relative weight of the tug and the canal-boat was such .that the tiller of the canal-boat would control both the tug and the canalboat renders it highly probable that the contract between the parties was as claimed by the respondent, viz.: that the respondent should furnish a man to steer the canal-boat; and inasmuch as the sole cause of the collision, in which the canal-boat was injured, was lack of proper steering of the canal-boat, it follows that the collision must be attributed to the fault of the libellant's agent, and not to any fault of the Alexander, unless it be true, as claimed by the libellant, that at the time of the accident the man at the tiller of the canalboat was sent there by the captain of the Alexander, and was consequently an agent of the respondent. Upon this question of fact the evidence is in flat contradiction. The man who was at the tiller of the canal-boat was a person in no way connected either with the boat or the tug, who was going to Rockaway by the permission of the captain of the Alexander. He, of course, must know how he came to be at the tiller of the canal-boat, and I decline to accept his statement as the truth. He says he was put there by the captain of the canalboat to steer the boat, while the captain went to his breakfast; that he was wholly unn.ble to manage the tiller, being a cripple; and that when the danger was seen he called, as did others, to the captain of the boat to come to the tiller, but without avail. Such being the fact, there appears to be no room to COlltend that the tug can be held to be responsible for the collision that ensued. The libel is accordingly dismissed, with costs.
V. L· .t H. B. 00.
and others v. THE LOUISVILLE & NA.SHVILLE Co., and fifteen other suits on behalf of bond holders,· against fifteen other railroad companies.
September 25, 1880.)
(Circuit Oourt, M. D. TenneB8e6.
MENTS-TENNESSEE SUTUTm-A.CT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1852-CON-
STRUCTlON.-The purchaser of negotiable state bonds sold in open market, without indorsement or guaranty, and issued to a railroad under the "Internal Improvement A.ct of the State of Tennessee," for the ironing and equipping of the said railroad, has no enforceable right, by contract or otherwise, in the statutory lien vested in said state by said internal improvement act, against the road and <3quipments of said railroad, for the iurpose of enforcing the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds at matul'ity.
In Equity. Some of these suits are pending in the eastern, sume in the middle, and others in the western district of Tennessee. These are suits in equity pending in the circuit courts of the United States for the districts of Tennessee, brought by on behalf of holders of internal improvement bonds of the state of Tennessee, against various railroad companif\sto whom the bonds were issued, to aid in the construction of their several lines of railroads, and against all other persons interested. They were argued together in April and May last, at Nashville. The object of the suits is to have a lien in favor of the bond holders declared and established upon the railroads of the several defendant companies, and a receiver appointed for the collection of the accrued and accruing interest, the interest having been in default since July 1, 1875. The principal is not due. The plaintiffs' contention is, briefly, that the acts passed by the legislature of the state of Tennessee in 1852, to grant aid to the railroad companies by a loan to them of the bonds of the state, imposed So lien upon the railroads, as security to the holder of the bonds and to the state. Payment to the holdel would operate as indemnity to the state. Inasmuch as the v.3,no.12-43