o'IURE 'V. STEAM-TUG :BRILLIANT,
the improved and pecnliar facilities of the railroad for dis. charging iron into bonded cars, by which the delay of weigh. ing it in smaller quantities by custom-house officers is obviated, fully made up the four days, considering how long it would probably have taken to have discharged the cargo at an ordinary dock. As to the facts on which this defence is based, I am not satisfied; and, even if I were, I doubt if it could be properly maintained without showing some consent by the master to wait, in order to obtain the advantage of the improved facilities. No such consent is claimed. On the contrary, it appears that the master from the first, and almost from day to day, protested against the delay and urged his right to be at once discharged. He was entitled to have the iron taken away as fast as he could deliver it, and the fact that the consignees did fully comply with the contract as soon as they gave him a berth. is no justification of the delay in procuring one. I pronounce in favor of the libellants for four days' demurrage. at the rate of £15 sterling per day.
O'fuRE 'V. THE STEAM-TUG
July 16. 1880.)
(District Oourt, E. D. New York. 1.
NEGLIGENCE-OANAL-BoAT IN Tow OF Tuo-MEASURE OF DAMAGES.
A canal-boat, while in the tow of a tug, was negligently run upon a sunken wreck, without any fauIL upon the part of the canal-boat. Held, that the liability of the tug was limited to the cost of pumping the canal-boat from the time of the accident till she was taken to the dry dock, the value of any personal property on board the boat, and belonging to the libellant, that was destroyed by the aCCident, and demurrage for the boat from the time of the accident till the time she was let off the ways, after being l'epaired, at the rate of four dollars a
T. C. Oampbell, for O'Hare. <t Hobbs, for the steam-tug Brilliant. BENEDICT, D. J. After examining the evidence in this case I have arrived at the following conclusions: The tug Bril.
liant took the canal-boat Starry Flag to tow her up Newtown creek, on the East river, and while towing her up the creek ran her upon a sunken wreck. The, tug had the canal-boat along-side, and it is impossible, therefore, to attribute the accident to any negligence on the part of the canal-boat. The existence and locality of the sunken wreck were known to those navigating the tug, and with care the canal.boat could have been taken past the wreck in safety. The striking of the canal-boat upon the wreck must, therefore, be attributed to a want of care on the part of the tug, and the defendants, her owners, are responsible to the libellant for the necessary damage resulting therefrom. After the accident the canal·boat was pumped out by her owner, and delivered to the defendants for the purpose of being repaired by them. All the repairs necessary to be done to the canal-boat, to make good the damage caused by striking the wreck, were thereafter done at the expense of the defendants, and the same paid for by them. The claim of the libel· lant that his boat, while being raised by the defendants for the purpose of being repaired, received additional serious injuries, which the defendants did not repair, is not sustained by the weight of the evidence. No damage sustained by the boat after she was repaired and sent off the ways by the defendants can be charged against them; and their liability in this action is limited to the cost of pumping the canal-boat from the time of the accident till she was taken to the dry dock, the value of any personal property on board the boat, and belonging to the libellant, that was destroyed by the accident, and demurrage for the boat from the time of the accident till the time she was let off the ways, after being repaired, at the rate of four dollars a day. A reference will be had to ascertain these several amounts. No costs will be allowed the libellant, for the reason that by far the largest portion of the demand made in his libel is rejected.
W.t1. TELEGRAPH CO. V. U. P. RY. CO.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRA.PH CO.
v. UNION Co. and others.
(Circuit CO!t1·t, D.
October 1, 1880.)
PACIF'ICRAILROAD ACTS "-OBLIGA'fION TO CONSTRUCT ANn OPERATB A LINE OF TELEGRAPH.-On the face of the acts of congress of 1862 and 1864, called the" Pacific Railroad Acts," the,obligation of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and its branches, to build and operate for the public a telegraph line along its right of way, was an ob·. ligation which they cannot abandon.
2. AC'f OF JULY 2, 1864.-By the provisions of the fourth section of the
act of July 2,186'1, entitled" An act for increasing the facilities of telegraph communication between the Atlantic and Pacific states, and the territory of Idaho," the Union Pacific Railroad Company and its branches were authorized to devolve the duty Qf constructing and operating the contemplated line of telegraph upon tbe United States Telegraph Company, and thereby to relieve themselves from that duty. ·· CORPORATION-RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS OF AN IMPERFECT OR INCOMPLETE ORGANIZATION.-lf the United States Telegraph Company was not regularly and completely organized at the time of the passage of the last-named act, the congress of the United States could adopt this imperfect or inchoate org'lnization; and, if it was the purpose of congress to do so, confer upon it all the powers specified in said act. '" INJUNCTION-MoTION TO DISSOLVE.-Without finally deciding, upon this hearing. whethel' the power to make the contract in question can be derived from the act of July 2, 1864, it is held, in view. of the vast iuterestp involved, and the serious consequences to follow a dissolution of the injunction, that for the purposes of this motion there is sufficient evidence of such authority under that act.
i. ACCEPTANCE OF PACIFIC RAILROAD A.CTS BY STATE CORPORATIONS.State corporations accepting the provisions of the Pacific ltailroaa acts are subject to all the provisions thereof. Following the Sink"ng Fund ClJIJeB, (99 U. S. 700.) 8. CONTRACT-DIRECTOUS-PEIlSONAL BENEFIT 0'& ADVANTAGE SECURED TO OFFICERS OF COHPORATION CoNTllACTING.-As a general proposition, where one of a body of individuals jointly interested in a matter consents to take a special advantage to himself, and receives a consideration for using his efforts to procure an agreement of the whole for the benefit of a third party, if such receipt of special advantage, whether of money.or property, be kept secret from hill copartners, or joint stockholders, or. those interested, and they act upon the belief that he is governed by no Qther interest than that which is common to them all, the contract is void. But there are circumstances in connection with the contract in question in this casc