can v. McCumber, 10 Watts, 212. The issuing of the execution from the court of common pleas was not an interference with the marshal, and in nowise tended to bring about a conflict, of jurisdiction. What good reato this execution creditor the benefit of a son, then, is there for lien? In Heidritter v. Oil-Cloth Co., supra, the court noticed and carefully distinguished between the proceedings in the state court for the purpose of declaring and efltablishing the mechanic's lien, and the subsequent proceedings involving the sale of the property, the latter only being adjudged void. In Bayard v. Bayard, 3 Clark, 155, (foot paging 261,) we have a decision by the United States circuit court for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, sustaining the lien of executions from the state courts against property in the hands of the marshal. The case was this: After goods bad been levied on by the marshal under several writs of fl. fa. from the circuit court, writs of fl. fa. against the same defendants were issued from the state courts, and put into the hands of the, sheriff. Subsequently another fl. fa. was issued from the circuit court, and was delivered to the marshal. In the distribution of the proceeds of the marshal's sale-the sum realized being insufficient to satisfy all ' the e:t.ecutions-it was held that, after satisfying the prior circuit court, executions, the money should be applied to the executions from the state courts in preference to the later execution from the circuit court. The principle decided was that, while the sheriff could not disturb the marshal's possession, still the fl. fas. from the state courts, upon delivery to the sheriff, bound the defendant's interest, subject to the marshal's levy. The principle is applicable here. I am of opinion that the writ of fl. fa. issued UP01;l the.judgment of Joseph Payne, administrator, etc., against James Lynn, became a lien upon the defendant's interest in the towboat Daniel Kaine upon the delivery of the writ into the hands of the Bheriff of Allegheny county; and therefore, that said execution creditor is entitled to Lynn's share of the surplus in the registry of the court. Leta decree be drawn in accordance with this opinion.
THE DREW.' McDONALD 'IJ. THE DREW.
(Di8triet (Jourt, B. D. New York. June 11, 1688.)
COLLISION-VESSEL AT ANCHOR-STEAMER OUT OF USUAL COURSE-ABSENCE OF ANCHOR LIGIIT-CONFI.ICTING TESTIMONy-WEIGHT OF
Libellmt'sschooner K. was lying at anchor on the we8tern8ide of the Hudson, river at, night in the mid8t of a violent gale, when 8he was run into by the pa88enger 8teamer Drew, on her way down the river from Albany to New York. The evidence was very conflicting li8. to' the' existence of any anchor' . light burning at the time of the colli8ion, the for some reason
l&portedby: Edward G. ,Benedict, ESq_1 of the New York bar..
become, extinguished. Held, that the schoolJ,er was on that ground in fault., ' . But, ,appearing also that, when struck, she was lying to the west of the .. ustialcotirse Of steamers, on a well-known anchorage ground. where the steamer should have known that vessels were liable to be anchored in the . prevailillg violent gale, that the steamer was in fault for running out,. of her usual track. near such an anchorage ground. .
In Admiralty. Libel for damages by collision. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for libelant. W. P. Prentice, for claimant. BRowN,J. At about half past 4 o'clock in the morning of November 16, 1887, during a violent gale from the north-west, the libelant's schooner Robert Knapp, lying at anchor about half a mile below Caldwell's point, in the Hudson river, was run into by the steamer Drew, on her trip from Albany to New York. This libel was filed to recover the damages. Many witnesses on behalf of the claimant insist that the schooner was lying in the usual track of the steamer, and that she exhibited no anchor light, so that she was not seen until the Drew was within 75 or 100 feet of her, when she was disclosed by the illumination of the Di'ew's head-light, and collision was inevitable. For the libelant it is contended that she was at anchor to the westward of the usual course of steamers, and that she had a good light burning up to the moment of collision, At Caldwell's point there is a sharp bend in the river of at least six points. Above the point the general course is downward about S. E. by S.; below the point, about S. W. by S. Immediately below the point the line of the shore runs, according to the map submitted, about W. by S. for more than half a mile, and then about S. W., forming a kind of bay below the point, in and below which is a common anchorage ground, and a convenient shelter against violent winds from the west and the north-west. 'l'he schooner had come t() anchor there on account of threatening 'weather, during the afternoon previous, a little below Caldwell's dock, which is about half a mile below the point. The master testified that he anchored first about 300 feet from the shore; that at 1 o'clock at night the wind blowing heavy, all hands were called, and 30 fathoms more of chain given to the anchor, and an additional anchor dropped, with 15 fathoms of chain; and at the same time the light, attached to a lanyard suspended fi-om the fore-rigging and about 15 feet above deck, was trimmed and renewed. The captain was up and down all night. Just before the collision he was looking to the southward, astern, to take the range of some objects in order to determine whether the schooner was dragging her anchor. He did not hear the Drew's approach until she was close aboard. He says that the light was extinguished by the shock of the blow, and that immediately after· the Drew had passed without stopping, he took down the lantern, found it still hot, with the wick red, the glass cracked, and a few small holes broken through it. At about 2 the tug-boat W. E. Street came to the landing, a,ud ano'clock at chored between the shore and the Knapp. Her pilot testified that the Knapp's light was then shining brightly. About half an hour afterwards
the tug Osceola also came to anchor just above the W. E. Street, and in coming in, her tow just escaped collision with the Knapp. Her captain and pilot both testify positively that there was no light at that time on the Knapp. The testimony of the lookout on the Drew was 110t taken in consequence of his illn'3Ss. Her captain and three quartermasters, who were in the wheel-house, all testify that no light on the Knapp was visible, and tha.t, if there had been, it would have been seen, and the Knapp easily avoided. Soon after the collision the lamp was relighted and hung 'up; but the wind blew out the light. The lantern was produced on the trial, showing a crack in the glass and some small holes broken in it, which the master testifies was done by the collision. , There is great difficulty in dealing satisfactorily with such contradictory testimony in regard to the Knapp's light. But where there is a concurrence of many person!!, who testify that no light was visible; who were in a. position to see it, if it was visible; whose interest and duty and safety were involved in observing it; and who, as in this case, did see other lights nearer the shore, but did not see the light in dispute; and where there is nothing to indicate negligence on their part; and a collision occurred which might easily have been avoided, and would natu'rally have been avoided, if the light had been visible and seen; and when their testimony is confirmed, as in this case, by other disinterested 'witnesses on another vessel, who also testify that no light was seen,-the weight of evidence must be deemed to be that there was no light shining at the time of collision. If this lantern was not quite tight before the collision, the high wiud that prevailed might have blown it out 110t 10ng,befQre;or from insufficient filling it might have burned low, so as to show the red wick testified to by the libelant. IndE;\ed, when a lamp is well supplied with oil, a sudden extinction of the light does not, I think, usually leave the wick red. The fact, therefore, to which the master testifies, that when he took the light down shortly after the col,1ision the wick, was afire, is a pretty strong indication that the light had gone out gradually through want of oil, and not by the suddenblow oithe collision. Chamberlain v. Ward,21 How. 548, 564. I feel constrained, tperefore, to hold, upon the testimony of so many witnesses, that the light was not properly burning at the time when the Drew approached, have been the cause of its failure. The Royal Arch, 22 Rep. 45,7; The Narragansett, 20 Blatchf. 87,11, Fed. Rep. 918; ,The Sam Weller, 5 Ben. 293; The Isaac Bell, 9 Fed. ,Rep. 842; The State oj Alabama, 17 Fed. Rep. 847; The Erastus Cm-ning, 25 Fed. Rep. 572; The Johanne Auguste, 21 Fed. Rep. 134, 140; The Alaska, 22 Fed. Rep. 548, 551; The Amboy, Id. 555. 2. I must hold the Drew also to blame for running so far to the westward out of the usual track of steamers, and at so high a rate of speed, -from 15 to 16 miles an hour,-over a known anchorage ground, when through the violent gale of that night many vessels were likely to be at anchor in that locality. One of the quartermasters of the Drew estimates the schooner at about 400 feet outside vf the two tows, which had lights, and in the high wind
were tailing directly out from. the dock. As the schooner was somewhat oelowthese bOats; she would not, on that estimate, be as much as 400 feet further out in the river. Thieis the highest estimate of the schooner's distance from shore that is based on specific data. It is more than twice the distance stated by several of the libelant's witnesses, and it is somewhat greater than the estimate of the captain of the Street, who was in a position to judge pretty accurately. The tows did not extend over 800 feet from the shore, and, assuming, therefore, that the schooner was as much even as 1,200 feet from the shore, an examination of the mll,p submitted shows that the Drew, in order to collide with the schooner at that distance from shore, must have gone more than a quarter ofa mile nefirer the shore than the ordinary course of such steamers in that part 'of the river. The usual course testified to is to round the point from ,600 to 1,200 feet distant, which agrees with the marking of the chart; and below the point to steer S. W. by S. This would carry the steamer '8 full half mile from shore abreast of where the Knapp lay. The master testified that when the wind is high from the westward they steer more to the westward, to make up for leeway. Whether at this time lhe course actually made was more westerly than was intended; or whether, on account of the high wind, the Drew intentionally hugged the westerly shore more than usual, it is certain from the position of the schooner, which is pretty'clearly established, that the Drew was far to the westward of the usual track of such steamers· ·In the case of Steam-ship Co. v. Calderwood, 19 How. 241, 246, the SQpreme court say: "This court has decided that neither rain. nor the darkness of the night. nor the absence of a light from a barge or ,sailing vessel. nor the fact that the steamer was well manned and furnished, and conducted with caution, will excusethe steamer for coming in collision with the barge or sailing vessel, when the barge or salling vessel is at anchor, or sailing in a thoroughfare, out of the usual track of the steam-vessel." It was not prudence, nor with due :regard to the safety of other vessels. for a steamer of the speed of the Drew to run aofar to the westward of her nsualcourse, at night and in a gale of wind, over, or in very close proximity to, a well-known an-chorage ground for ;other vessels, which she must have known were likely to be lying there .for shelter. For this want of reasonable prudence, under such circumstances, I must hold her also to blame, and the damages must be divided. The ;liydia, 4 Ben. 523; The ISQ.acBell, 9 Fed. Rep. 842.
THE LONE STAR.
THE LoNE STAR. I
(Ct'rcuii Court, E. D. New York, E. D. July 21, 1888.)
SALVAGE-VESSEL AT DOCK-FIRE.
The steam-ship Lone Star lay onthe lower side of pier 37, North river, New York, when fire broke out on the wharf, which spread with great rapidity, until the steam-ship herself caught fire. Various tugs came to her assistance, and, when the hawsers which fastened her to the pier were burned away, some of them drew her out into the stream. where other tugs came alongside, and she was towed, water being pumped on her meantime, to the fiats at Weehawken. where she sank, and the fire was extinguished. Held, that the tugs were entitled to salvage. . The services rendered by the tugs to the steam-ship differed in degree. Held, that the most important service was rendered by the tug Pioneer, which put the line on the Lone Star by which she was towed out from the burning pier into the river To her was awarded $1,800 as salvage. Held, further. that other grades of salvage services were rendered by the tugs which assisted in towing the steam·ship to the flats, and by the tugs which pumped water on the fire. To these tugs various sums, from $1,000 to $250, were awarded.
9. SAME-COMPENSATION-DIFFERENT GRADES OF SERVICE-TOWAGE AND PUMP-
The Lone Star was an iron steam-ship. She was so much damaged by the tire that she was sold as a wreck. If she had received no assistance, she would have been sunk in her slip, and would have been raised and sold as old iron. Held that, in ascertaining the value to the l!hip·owner of the services rendered by the salvors, the amount that the owners would have realized from her sale as old iron, if she had so sunk, should be deducted from the proceeds of her sale as a wreck. For the purposes of this computation.. of salvage, such amount saved to her owners was found to be from $22,000 to $29,000. The total award to the tugs Will! $8,300.
In Admiralty. Libels for· salvage. Appeal from district court. 34 Fed. Rep. 807. Eleven different suits were brought againstthe wreck of the steam-ship Lone Star for salvage services rendered to her in the fire at Morgan's Line pier, New York, in February, 1887. The suits were consolidated on mo-tion. From the order of the district court claimants appeal. Alexander & Ash, for Howard. Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, for Kinny, Love, and Chapman. Wilcox, Adams & Macklin, for Bridges. Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, for McCaldin. Anson B. Stewart, for Hofman. Edward D. McCarthy, for Hicks & Sullivan. Charles H, Tweed and R. D. Benedict, for the Lone Star.
BLATCHFORD, Justice. In this case I find the following facts: On the 28th of February, 1887, a fire broke out on a lighter loaded with cotton, which was lying at the outer end of pier 37, North river, New York city. The pier was a covered pier, and its shed was full of cotton in bales, and
Reportedby,Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar. .