50 per cent. of the value of the Hogan. This I think too much. If, taking into account the perilous situation of the tng, the salvage be at $1,250, the pilot boat will, in my opinion, receive a liberal reward. Let the libelants have a decree for $1,250, together with the costs of this action. '
CoFFIN 1.l. THE OSCEOLA.
(DiBtriot Oourt, E. D. NtAD York.
COLLISlOlV,.....()VEBTAXING VESSEL"';" CLoSE APPRoACH-No SIGIULB -
Where the steam-boat 0., overtaking the 8., collided with her, and, on suit brought, defended by alleging' a sheer on the part of the 8.· but the evidence lIl!,owed that she had .approached dangerously near the S., without giving the sigtlal required by the international rules. heldtha,t, if the S. made no sheer, the O. w.as in faUlt as .theovertaking vessel; if thll S. did sheer, the O. was stUl in fault for her approach without signals.. Held, also, that, in the absence of from the 0., the sheer of the 6. was not a
Ed'lDard H. Hobbs, for libelant. Caryenter Jc Moaher, for claimant·
. BEtqIDICT,' J. If, as the libelants contend, the Spray made no sheer, the liability of the Osce()la is clear. If, on the other hand, the Spray sheer,lltill the Osceola was in fault, for she was the overtaking veBS.el;and approached dangerously near to the Spray without giving the signals required by the inspectors' rules. Had the signal been given, or been proved that the Spray had been otherwise informed of the position of the Osceola, the Spray would have been in fault for her course, when she, did, but, in the absence of such signal 01' such knowledge, her change was not a fault. . The libelant must have a. decree for his damages, with a reference to ascertain the amount.
, Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., oCthe New York bar.
(District Court, No D. N6'UJ York. April 1, 1887.)"
I" i '.... t, ·. :
· , '"
CltARTER-PARTy-BREACH OF-AnHIBALTY JURISDICTION.
When the voyage was not b oard.
An action in rem cannot be maintained for the breach of a charter-party
part of the cargo delivered on
Admiraity. Libel in rem:fOI; oran executory contract. ceptions to libel. . " .,' . John G. Milburn, for libelan,t. B. H. Williams, for claimant.
1885, the owner of the in writing, chartered her to, the libelant to can:y, a carlfo of Iqml;1er from Oscoda, Michigan',m Port Arthat and refused to perform the condltlons i 0fthecharter-party_:The voyage was not undertaken, and orl:'poard." The UbelWas med Septhe while lying at.,the port of Buffalo. The claimant now :tiles 'exceptions, dispoting the jurisdiction (Jf court upon the ground that no maritime lien was, created, and therefore the libelant is not in a position to proceed ,in rem.' The sole question, therefore, is, can an action in rem be ItlllintaiIied, for a breach (Jf a charter-party, no part of the cargO.'having been delivered? There can be no doubt that the negative of this prop?sition is sustained by a greatpreponderanceofau.thority. J.fheKeokuki 9 Wall. 517; The Jireeman, 181 How. 182;'J!he TankeeBlade, 19 How.82j The H('JI'miiage,4 BlatchL 474; The 2 Ben.: 294; The Ohaffee, 2 Fed. Rep. 401; The Monte A., 12 Fed. Rep. 331; The City of Batm Rouge, 19 461. The cases holding a conti-arydootrine have not been followed in recent years; As the question, so far as this court is concerned, is no longer an open one, nil: examination of prim';ple would be a pointless and unprofitable proceeding. ' The exceptions are sustained.
by Theodore M. Etting, Esq., .ot the Philadelphia bar.
FROlolJllft tI. DUCLOS.
(:District Oowrt, 8. D. New York. April 7, 1887.)
CONt:lutil-AcTIONs AGAINS'l'-JOINT DEFENDANTS-JURISDICTION.
2. SAME-DISTJUCT C O U R T S . .
Prior to the act of 1875, the reasonable construction of Rev. St. U. .8. §§ 568. 711, and of the judiciary act of 1789, giVing, up to the passage of the act of IS75, (18 St. at Large; 818.) exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts of "all suits consuls or vice-consuls." embraced all suits to which the consul or 'V1Cli\;cQusul'was a necessary defendant, because Within the general language Of the eonsUtutionand acts Of congtess, and because otherwise there would be no legal redress upon joint obligations where a consul wl}!l1Jo necessaryco-defendant; IIond the same construction must still prevaiL Hell1, therefore, a iliotion to dissolve an attachment against a consul's necessary cowant ofjutisdietion, should be denied.
Motion to Vacate Attachment. 'Olin,' Rives JcMontgomery,for plaintiff. Bflnjam'itn Yaw, for defendant Duclos.
BRoWN, J. On the twenty-thitd of March last, .suit was commenced. in this recover the value of a bill ofgoods sold by the plaintiff in Octobet,1883, to the defendants; and on the same day an attachment was issued, pursuant to the state practice, against the preperty of the defendant Duclos, a resident of the state of New Jersey. The complaint and affidavit stated that the defendant Fritsch is the Austrian vice-consul at tbis Port. defendant Duclos now appears for the purpose only ofyMating the attachtnent,bn the ground that this court bas no juriSdidt'ion of au action against the Consul and another defendant, but only in an action against the consulalone. . The seVenteenth paragraph of section 563 of the Revised Statutes of , theUllited States gives this court jurisdiction of" all suits against consuls or Vi6e-consuls, except for offenses above tbe description aforesaid." The exception' does not affect this caSe. The cases cited by the defendant to show that ,each of the defendants must be amenable to the jurisdiction of tbe fedetaloourts are all cMes relating to suits "between citizens of differeht states," in wbich tbe language of the statute is quite different. See Rev. St. § 629; StraWbridge v. CurtWi, 3 Cranch, 267; Coal Go. v. BlatchfOrd, 11 WalL 172. In those cases the jurisdiction of the federal cou!rts was neV'et exclusive of the jurisdiction of the etate courts. But the jurisdiction of the federal C01ll'ts over consuls and vice-consuls has always been exclusive of the state courts from tbe passage of the judiciary act of 1789 (1 St.. at Large, 76) until the act of February 18, 1875, (18 St. at Large, 318, Rev. St. U. S. § 711.) See Bars v. Preston, 111 . U. S. 252, 261,4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407. Whatever may be the effe<:t of the repeal of the' exclusive ju.risdiction v.30F.no.6-25