878 pilot to stay by till he could be brought into the slip and his voyage was ended, or he could have retained the services of the tug to aid him to remove his vessel if the wind changed, or he could have sought some more safe place at a different anchorage, or at a piet: on the west side of the river. As it was, he was induced to let the pilot and the tug both go, and, practically, was deprived of all means of relief ap.d escape from the danger till the next day. It has been attempted to show that there was no safer place to which the vessel could have been taken during the night. I think the point is not sustained by the evidence, nor does it seem to be set up in the answer. But the presence of the pilot himself would have afforded some protection, and it is not shown that if he had given notice of the danger the vessel could not have escaped the damage which it has suffered. It was incumbent on the respondent to show that she could not. This he has not done. Fortunately the injury is very slight; it might well have been the sinking of the vessel and the loss of the cargo. Decree for libellant, with cosb, and reference to compu1ie damages.
(Di8trict Oourt, S. D.
:I. COU,ISION-CANAL-GREEN LIGHT.-The rules of the Delaware & Rart-
tan Canal require canal-boats in motion to carry a small green Ugh&. over the stem. Held, that a globe lantcrn, with a piece of green glass inserted on the outside between the glass of the lantern and the wire fender, of an oval shape, about four and a half inchel! long up and down, and three and a half inches wide in the center, and so arranged, with reference to the flame, that the green rays extended 40 degrees on each side :>f the line on which the boat was moving, was D. small green light within the rule.
ThOR. M. Wheeler, for libellant. S. B. Ransom, for claimant. CHOATE, D. J. This is a suit to recover damages sustained by the canal-boat S. Cmig in a collision w.ith the steam-pro-
II'CAUSLAND tJ. BTEAY-PROl'ELLEB DELAWARE.
peller Delaware, on the Delaware and Raritart canal, near Kingston lock, on the night of the seventeenth of April, 1879. The canal-boat sighted the steamer, which was approaching her in the opposite direction, and drew in close to the to'Wpath side of the canal, as the mages of the canal required; but the steamer struck her on the bow, within a foot of the stem, having also drawn in close to the tow-path side, in order to pass between the canal..boat and that side of the canal. The excuse made by the steamer is that the canalboat did not have above her stem a green light, as the rules and usages of the canal require of Or boat in motion, and that she had a white light, which Illisled the steamer, and led her pilot to believe that the canal-boat was laid up against the opposite Biie of the canal. The testimony is that the night was vellY dark and stormy; and if, in fact, the canal-boat had carried a white light, there might be ground for this defence, since it was so dark that nothing could be seen at any considerable distance except lights. On the 'Part of the canal-boat the testimony tends -to show that she carried a globelautern, with a piece of green glass inserted on the outside between the glass of the lantern and the wire fender, of an oval shape, about four and a half inches long, up and down, and three and a half inches wide in the center, and so arranged, with reference to the flame, that the green rays extended 40 degrees oil each side of the line on which the boat was moving. The theory of the defence is either that before the collision this green glass got diE\.placed by the wind, or the lantern was so swa.yed by the wind that the light cast forward as the steamer approached was in fact a white light, or that the illumination of those parts of the lantern outside of the green glass was such as, at a distance, to give the light the effect of a white light, even to a person within the range of the' green rays. Upon all these points, however, the preponderance of evidence is with the libellant. It is very satisfactorily shown that the green glass was in place; that the lantern was so hung against the samson's-post that it could not turn with the wind; that, in fact, it threw a distinct and bright green light forward upon
that part of the canal on which the steamer was approaching. The canal is not straight at the place of the collision, but there is no such bend in it as to warrant the conclusion that the steamer was outside of the field of green rays. Experi. ments with the lantern, which was produced in court, have satisfied me that the green rays are not obscured by the illumination of the other parts of the lantern, as claimed for the defence. The only rational explanation of the collision is that the pilot of the steamer, either from ,defective vision or inattention, mistook the light for a white light, and concluded that this was one of a line of boats, of which there were several along that part of the canal, showing white lights and drawn up against the berme bank. This mistake as to her position, if he mistook the color of the light, was quite possible on account of the bend in the, canal. That he was inattentive to the color of the light appears, I think, from his own testimony j for. whatever may be the effect of this kind of a green light at a distance, he never discovered that it was a green light when close in front of it, where it was most unmistakably green. And the testimony of the man with him in the pilot house also shows that he took no careful observation of the light. attempt to prove by the pilot of a steamer that passed the canal-boat before the collision that the light was not green failed. It is not at all clear that the boat the pilot of this other steamer saw was the S. Craig; and if it was this boat, the evidence tending to show that her light was green is too strong to be overcome by his testimony. The rules of the canal require canal·boats in motion to carry a. small green light over the stem. The light carried by the S. Craig was a small green light, within the rule. No question is raised as to the jurisdiction of the court. Decree for libellant, with costs, and reference to computa damages.
UNION MUT. LIFE INS. CO.V. MASTEN.
LIFE INs. Co. v.
Oourt, D. Indiana.
L AGENCy-IMPLIED AUTHOlUTy-EvIDENcE.-The implication ought to be clear where a party relies upou an implied authority from his principal to sell real property.
2. AnMISSIONSc-EvIDENcE.-Admissions are not only competent.· but may
control the conclusion, where there is a conflict in the evidence, and they concern the subject-matter about which that conflict arises. 3. AGENCy-PRESUMED AUTHORITy-BONA FIDE PURCHASEH.-Whell property has been purchased of an agent in good faith, and the money paid, under the supposition that the agent was duly authorized to make the sale, a court of equity will protect the purchaser, if it can do so consistently with principles of law.
Claypool, Newcomb <t Ketcham, for plaintiff. Gordon, Lamb d: for defendants. DRUMMOND, C. J. It is difficult for the court to determine
beyond all controversy what are the facts in this case, as faults have been committed on both sides. The facts are that James Buchanan, a lawyer of Indianapolis, became the agent of the plaintiff, a corporation createsI under the laws of Maine, but doing business in Boston, Massachusetts, for the purpose of loaning money and taking security for these loans. A large amount of business was transacted by him. He says about $300,000 were loaned, for which security was taken. Among the loans was the one which has given rise to the controversy in this case. The arrangement made at·the time Mr. Buchanan became the agent of the plaintiff, was, according to his own statement, that he was to receive his compensation out of the commissions the borrowers might be willing to give him for obtaining the loans; and, in case of foreclosure and legal proceedings, he was to have such compensation or fees as, by the terms of the contracts which he made with the borrowers, they were to pay. A tract of land was sold under foreclosure proceedings, and a certificate of purchase was taken by Mr. Buchanan and transmitted to the company. It seemB that at the time the v.3.no.15- .56