causing unreasonable embarrassments 'and delays in navigation. The question of a reasonable space and margin for safety is almost wholly a. question of circumstances. The situation here was as simple and as little complicated as possible. It was quite different from .that in the ease of The Active, 22 Fed. Rep. 175, and from that of the Britannia and the Beaconsfield in the case above cited. There, the Britannia's COUl'l;e, instead of being direct. fixed, and determinable, like the St. Johns', involved a swing of five or six points, and was therefore largely indeterminable. The fault of the Britannia was in cQminginto the wrong part of the river; and the only question as regards her was whether that fault actively and proximately contributed to the collision. It was the same in the case of The Active. IJere the St. Johnswas going where she had a right togo; she was puras I find, materially. suing her direct and' proper course; she it&t all, deviate from it; she W'as not guilty offault in shaping her course, or in consenting to go betweell the two tugs, as the Rosecrans proposed she should go; .and the St. Johns had already slowed. The Rosecrans had no right to expect more; and she would have had a reasonably suffito do, ,and as cient margin of safety had she kept on, as she was the St. Johns had the right,to rely on her doing. There .was no apparent necessity for her contrary maneuver, and when the St. Johns saw this dangerous maneuver she instantly reversed, and hailed the Rosecrans to goaheaq.lt is urged that the St. Johns' helm ought have been put insta,rltly hard to starboard, instead of gradually; but any ference in the rapidity of putting the wheel over, when so near as they then .could not have avoided this collision. The whole fault, I think, was with the Rosecrans. Decrees accordingly,with a reference compute the damages.
THE GRAND ISLE.
(ar."'cuit Oourt,E. D. Louisiana. April 6,'1888.)
The owner of a brought a libel for damages against the G., a steamtug. Two witnesses and libelant testified that the G. collided with the lug'gel' in Four employes of the G. testified positively that they passed the lugger WIthout colliding in any way. M.any circumstances corroborated claimant's witnesses, while some favored libelant and his witnesses. Held that. the weight of evidence bein!; for claimant, and the record showing that libelant had grossly exaggerated the circumstances and damages. the libel should be dismissed. .
In Admiralty. Libel for damages. The Grand Isle, a steam-propeller, was plying between New Orleans and Grand Island, through the "Company Canal," an outlet from the Mississippi river. On the 9th of November, 1886, she was on her way
to Grand Island, having a model barge in tow, which a man was steering. On her way, just after leaving the canal lock, she approached the lugger San Pierre, which boat she was charged with· having run into and damaged. The rules and custom which regulate the navigation of the canal are that luggers, when a steamer is about to pass' by them, are to be held by poles or ropes to the bank. The lugger was on her way to New Orleans, in charge of her owners, with a cargo of oysters. J. D. Grace and F. Armant, for libelant. O. B. Sanswln and' O. McRae Selph, for claimant.
PARDEE, J. The liability of the Grand Isle in this case turns upon the fact whether or no the Grand Isle collided with the lugger. If she did,.she was in fault, and the lugger was not in fault thereafter in swingIf she did not, ing out into the stream and colliding with the then the lugger was not properly held or secured to the bank of the canal, as the rules required, and whatever collision there was with the barge in tow was the result of the lugger's negligence. On this point Joseph Balsamo, crew of the lugger, swears "that the steam-boat struck us, and gave 'us a side lick in passing;" and he says, "the shock of the steam-boat caused the oysters to open." Pierre Nicole, the libelant, swears. "The steam-boat struck me; the shock broke the pole I was holding, and itstruck me a blow which knocked me down." Salvadore Picone; witness for the libelant, who was with the lugger Eva, says, in his examination in chief, "that the steam-boat did not strike the lugger;" but on says "that the steam-boat did strike the lugger."· This constitutes the libelant's entire evidence on this material and turning point. The claimant produces the testimony of Michael MeSwensy, Jacob Prevost, Francisco Payreagan, and Joseph Worley, all at the time employes of the Grand Isle, and all of them swear positively that the steamer passed the lugger without colliding in any way. Willof.the Grand Tsle, swears positively both iam Appel, another ways. There are many circumstances developed by the testimony in the case which corroborate :to 8,ome extent the testimony of claimant's witnesses, and there are some circumstances which corroborate the libelant and his witness. W;htlfe the truth lies, the court cannot undertake to say. The weight of the evidence is with the claimant. Considering this, and the fact apparent from the record that, if the libelant's boat was injured at lJ.1l, he has grossly exaggerated the circumstances and damages, it i!'l clear that the libel in this case should be dismissedj and it is so ordered, with cost!'! of both courts.
J. B. BREWSTER & CO. V. TUTHILL SPRING 00.
769 et ale
TUTHILL SPRING CO.
(Circuit Court. N. D. lllinou.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-REMEDY AT LAV<.
April 30, 1888.)
Complainant. the owner of a patent for animprQvement in carriage springs, ma:le a contract with defendants, spring makers. .by which defendants agreed to collect a certain royalty for each set of springs manufactured by them under complainant's patent, and sold to carriage manufacturers and dealers in carriage hardware. and to render quarterly accounts of such sales. and to permit complainant's agents to examine their books"a certain portion of the royalty to be paid to complainant. Held, that for a failure on the part of defendants to render accounts or to permit an examination of their books, complainant had an adequate remedy at law, and could, under Rev. St. U. S. 724, compel a production of the books; and thatspecilic performance would not be decreed. Complainant's patent, reissue of August 18, 1874, No. 6,018. was merely for the combination of a carriage spring with other elements, and not upon the manufacture of the spring itself; but the device was known in the market as the" Brewster Spring, " and defendants supposed that the patent covered' its manufactt::,e, and there was evidence that complainant's agent so represented to them. Complainant knew of this mistaken impression on the part of defendants, but did not attempt to correct it, and the license was procured on the basis that defendants had no right to manufacture the springs without it. During the life of the contract other parties manufactured and sold the "Brewster Spring," without license or royalty, thereby injuring defendants' business, but complainant never took any legal steps to prevent such sales. Held, that complainant's conduct in obtaining the license, and in failing to protect its licensees, excluded it from the protection of a court of equity by specific performance.
In Equity. Bill for specific performance. Giffard Brown, B. F. ThurBton, and Je88e A. Baldwin, for complainant. Judd, R11chie, ESMr Judd, for defendants. BLODGETT, J. This is sbill in equity to compel a specific performance of a contract entered into between the complainant and the defendants F. H. Tuthill and W H. Tuthill, and which it is claimed the defendant the Tuthill Spring Company is bound to perform and carry out as the successors of the individual defendants. It appears from the pleadings and proofs that the complainant, a corporation existing under the laws of the state of New York, is the owner of a patent granted to complainant, as assignee of Thomas H. Wood, on May 27, 1873, for "an improvement in carriage springs," which patent was reissued August 18, 1874, to complainant, as reissue No. 6,018. The patent in question is for a device for connecting the body of a buggy or light carriage with the side-bars by means of two transverse semi-elliptic springs, and the claim of the patent is in the following words: "The semi-elliptic springs, G, G, interposed between the side-bars, F, F, and the wagon body, all combined substantially as specified." It appears that after the patent in question was issued and placed before the public, buggies or light road wagons containing the device covered by this patent became popular, and quite an extensive demand was at once created for this class of vev.34F.no.1O-49