ORISON ",.THE SYRACUSE. I
(District Court, E. D. New York. May 12, 1888.)
COLLISION-VESSEL AT ANCHOR IN PROPER PLAOE.
A tow:boat is liable for the damage resulting from a collision between the boats of her tow and a vessel at anchor in a proper place.
In· Admiralty. Libel f6r dattlages. On the night of October 1'6, 1886, the schooner Juliette Terty was lying- at anchor in the North the foot of ThirtyFourth street. The tow-boat Syracuse, with a. tow of canal-boats and ·1:),argesastern of her on a h'awser; passed up outside of the schooner 'out touching her, but thetoweame in collision with the schooner, carrying' alway her head-gear, and causing her to lose an anchor and chain. For such ,damage this suit brought. The Syracuse claimed that the schooner was anchored in airiiifiproper place, and, did not payout 'her anchor chain, when hailedtd do so, and that'thetow was carried upon 'her by the force of " , Carpenter «Moshir, .for libelant. ' for theSymcuse. J. 'This is an action to recover damages occasioned to the Terry by, being run into by: the tow-boat Sytacrise,ih th;e'Nprtb river. The sCh60nerwas at the time at anchor at .ft 'where'she had iuight tb De. 'The evidence fails to show fault onIler ·part. The fault was of the Syracuse in omitting to avoid The libelant must have a decree for his damages and costs.
et az''' ,
(District Court, S. D. N6'U! York. May 28, 1888.)
SEAMEN.....DISABLED SlIlAJUN--ABANDONHE1.'tT wiTHOUT PAYMENT OF WAGES-:aRITI8H VESIjIllL.
Under the provisions of the British merchants'shipping act, a vesllel has no right to abandon a disabled seaman without payment of his wages up to the time of his being left on shore, together with prOVision for his return home.
2.BAllE-CERTJl,l'ICATlIl'OF DI8ABU.ITy-FAIX,VBlll.TO FORNISH-PlllNAX,U-Rl!lcov· ERY IN ACTION FOR WAGES. . . .. ,
The penalty of £10, provided by sectiOn 209 of the British merchants' shipping aGt for failure of the Iilasterto deliver to the consul a certifioate of a !leamAn', inability .procee(;l 0,1)" the togethllr anaccount of the wages due him, and payment thereof, is recoverable by the sea· ' ', man in an action against the vessel for his wages.
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
In Admiralty. Libel for wages. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, for libelant. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for respondents. BROWN, J. On or about November 19, 1887, the libelant shipped on board the British bark Levuka, at. London, for a voyage to New York and back'to tlle United Kingdom or to the Continent, as ordinary seaman and cabin boy, at the wages of 30 shillings per month. On the voyage out, as the evidence shows, he sustained injuries to the stomach by a fall, and was disabled from work thereafter. Shortly .after arrival at New York he was sent by the master to tpe Long Island Oollege Hospital, andremained there from January 21st until March 8th. The bark sailed from New Yqrk 011 her return voyage on the 2d of March, without notice to the libelant"or inquiry at the hospital, and without any effort to take him on board. This was, filed to recover his wages to date, with of board. '. .' ;,Section 185 of tpe British merchants' shipping act provides that, where II. seaman is on the master's certificate of inability to proceed, he shall be entitled to wages up to that time only. Section ·209 makes it in such a case the duty of the master to deliver a certificate of his unfitness to the consular officer, with an account of the wages due him and payment thereof; and for neglect of this he is made liable, "in addition to the payment of the wages," to a penalty not exceeding £10. 205 also requires provision to be made for sending the seaDlan home.. I am satisfied from the evidence that when the ship sailed the libelant was not fit for duty. But the master had no, right to him payment of aeent of his wages, or provision for his return. Such are thevery evils which the Englishstatutes, and our own simillir statutes, were designed to prevent. The libelant must be adjudged entitled to his wages up to the 2d of March, amounting t.o $17, less $1 previously paid him, and to payment of the additional sum of$35, under the provisions of said section 209, and to a return passage to London. The context in section 209 shows that the penalty was designed to be paid to the seaman; fodt says it is a penalty addition to payment of wages." The same language shows that it is the master who is to pay both the wages and the penalty; and as the owners are liable for the seamen's wages if the master does not pay them, so the penalty, which in this case is 8,ssociated with the wages for the benefit of the seaman,and to be paid with them, must be held recoverable against the owners as the responsible principals, in the same way that unpaid wages are recoverable. A return passage to London was offered to the libelant, and, it is understood, will be furnished. .Upon provision made WIthin 20 days for such t:eturn, judgrp.ent will be allowed for only $52. not so furnished, the ordinary charge .of a return to England· will be added The libelant is also entitled to costs of the action l but not to board since March 2d. . . .
CO., Limited,et !d.
May 81, 1888.)
w: n. Pennsylvania.
COURTS-FEDERAL JURISDICTION-QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER PATENT LAWSAsSIGNMENT OF PATENT-BREACH OF CON'l'1tAC'l'.
Keller, the gnmtee of letters patent, assigned one-half of I,he patent to Williams by an instrument in ,writing recorded in the pattHlt-otlice, which, after the assigning clausa reads as follows: "This assignment is made and accepted upon the distinct understanding and agna,went between the parties thereto that neither the said Keller nor the said Williams is to make any traJlSfer of his respective interest in said patent, nor to grant any license to use the s,ame, without,the written consent of the other; and fnrther. that neither of llaHlparties shall build more than one boat each with the said patented improvementupon it, without the written consent of the other; and the boat each is permitted so to bliild is t6 be used only by said party as an individual, and not as a member of any firm or copartnership. without the written conKeller and his associ· sent of the other' party." Williams filed a atesin business acting under him, charging them with using the patented in· vention in violation of the above-quoted clause of the instrument of assignment, and praying for an injunction, etc. Held, that the case was not one arising under th'e patent laws, and the court had no jurisdiction thereof, aU the parties ,to the suit bein/;t citizens of the same state. 1 Bill for injunction to rel:ftrain the infringement of letters
In Equity. patent.
D. F. Patterson, for complainant. Wm. L.Pierce, for defendants.
Before MCKENNAN and ACHESON, JJ.
ACHESON, J. Nicholas J. Keller, one of the defendants, the grantee and exclusiveo\Vner of reissued letters patent No. 6,598, 10r an improvementinsand and gravel separating machines, by an instrument of writing by him. executed, bearing, date March 31, 1883, and recorded in the patent.-office on April 2, 1883, assigned the one-half of said letters patent (subject to certain outstanding licenses) to Thomas R. Williams, the plaintiff. After the assigning clause the instrument proceeds in the words following: ' · "This, assignment is made and accepted upon the distinct understanding and between tbe parties thereto that neither the said Keller nor tbe said Williams is to make any transfer of his respective interest in said patent, nor to grant any license to use the same, without the written consent of the other; and further that neither of said parties shall build more than one boat each with the said patented improvement upon it, without the written cOllsent of the other; and the boat each is permitted so to build is to be used only by said party as an individual, and not as a member of any firm or copartnership. without the written consent of the other party. " The bill recites the invention of said improvement by Keller; the grant of the original patent to him; the surrender thereof, and the.grant of the reissue; and the said instrument of writing of March 31, 1883. The bill alleges and the answer admits that the defendant, the Star Sand
note at end of case.