viotts defect. And it is held that owners oftugs are chargeable with in undertaking a tow upon a trip for which its unfitness is obvious. The Wm. Murtaugh, 13 Fed. Rep. 404; The Wm.Oox, 9 Fed. Rep. 672; Connolly v. Ro88, 11 Fed. Rep. 342. If the loss occurs in the ordinary contingencies of the voyage, to which the unfitness contributed, public policy require:s that both tug and tow should be held to be in fault. And so here, if the raft was ina condition obviously unfit to encounter the known hazards of the voyage, the rule that both should be held in fault wl)uld be applied. But I have found from the evidence that 'the loss here complained of occurred from extraordinary contingencies, or hazards resulting from defendants' failure to use due care and skill, and endeavors in performing the service, as required by their engagement. News. Salvo 141, 144. A decree will be entered for libelantfor $132.18, being the value of the logs lost, less $15, the balance of the towage chllrges due to defendants by the libelant, which is claimed as a set-off in this case.
«(JWcuitOO'Url,D.' Oregon. October 9, 1888.) 1.
8mPPING-BTOWAGE-SALT OVER IRON NEAR MAST.
It is bad stowage.to place salt over iron and anvils, though crates of crockery be placed between them, and to place the salt, iron, and crates within an inch or so of the mast. Where the cargo is thus stored, eveu though a rent in the mast-coat, by which water went into the hold, causing the iron and anvils to rust, was a peril of the sea, the carrier is liable for the injury.
BAllE-LIABILITY 011' CARRIER-PERILS 011' THE BEA.
In Admiralty. On appeal from district court, ante, 86. This case was heard on an appeal from the district court. The suit was brought to recover damages for the non-performance of a contract of affreightment concerning a lot of Swedish iron and anvils brought on the bark Nith from Liverpool to Portland. When the goods were discharged at this port they were found to be badly rusted from contact with salt water, and the libelants refused to receive them, and brought this suit for damages. The district court found for the libelants, and gave them a decree for $3,996.18, the value of the goods at this port, with legal interest thereon from the date of arrival, with costs and disbursements. From this decree the claimant appealed. Edward N. Deady, for libelants. O. E. S. Wood, for claimant. Before SAWYER, Circuit Judge.
SAWYER, J., (orally.) Three points are made hereby counsel for the claimant and appellant against the findings and decree of the district court: (1) The iron was damaged with rust from contact with sea-water when it was received on board the Nithj (2) the iron and anvils were preperly stowed under the salt, with the crates of earthenware between them; and (3) the break in the mast-coat by which the sea-water went into the hold, and caused the iron and anvils to rust, was a peril of the sea, for which the vessel is not liable; On a careful examination of the evidence in the case, I am satisfied that the iron and anvils were in good condition when shipped on the Nith; that it was not good stowage to place salt over the iron and anvils, as was done in this case, even with the crates of crockery between them, and that it was clearly bad stowage to place the salt,crates, and iron within an inch or so of the mast. Admittinll: that ,the rent in the mast-coat was a peril of the sea, had it not been for this bad stowage, no harm would have resulted to the cargo, as the water would have run down the side of the mast to the bottom of the vessel. A peril of the sea does not excuse the carrier from a loss or injury to the goods committed to' his care if his own negligence or want of skill has contributed to the result. The cargo, and particularly the salt. should have been down the same would dunnaged away from the mast, so the water not have affected it. In conclusion, I adopt the findings. of the district judge, both of fact and law, for the reasons given in his opinion, to which I can add nothing. There must be a decree for the libelants accordingly.
. FEDERAL REPORTER.
opened, and extended and made a uniform width of sixty-six (66) feet, from Scottwood avenue (formerly Raymond street) to the westline of the east 146100 acres of that part of the west half of the nl?rth-west one-fourth of section 35, town 9, l'ange 9 east, south of lots 1 and 2, and north of Monroe street. 2. That for the purpose of laying off, opening, and extending said Woodruff avenue, and making the same a uniform width of 66 feet between the aforesaid points, it is necessary and hereby ordered that the following described parcels of lots or lands be appropriated by the city of Toledo, to-Wit: Being more particularly described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point 'Yhere the south line of Woodruff avenue produced inters!lcts the west line of $Cottwood avenue; thence north 66 feet along the westline of Scottwood avenue.to the north line of Woodruff avenue produced; thence along the north line of Woodruff avenue produced to the west line of the east 146-1UO acres of that part of the west half olthe north-west one-fourth of section 35, town 9, range 7 east, south of lots 1 and 2, and north of Monroe street; thence south along said west line above described to the south line of Woodruff avenue prodiIee!l; thtmce east along said south line of WoodrUff avenue product'd to the place of beginning,-which lies within the lines of sa.id Woodruff avenue.extended, and not now dedicated for street purposes, and being in said city of Toledo, Ohio.. "Sec. 3. That the costs and expenses of laying oft','opening, extending,and widening and straightening said street, including all expellsesincidentto'and resulting from the,appropriation of the .Iots and parcpls of land hereinbefore dl?$cr,ibe<i, shall upon the lots bounding and abutting upon said Woodruff avenue, between Scottwood avenue and the west line of the east 1 46"100 acres auove descrjbed, in proportion to the foot front, and the amount so assessed Shall be payable in two annual installments. "8ec.4. The city solicitor is directed to institute the necessary proceedings in the probate court of Lucas county for the condemnation and appropriation of the lots and lands st>ei'ified for the above purposes.'" . . '1'his extension of Woodruff avenue, which the ordinance seeks to accomplish, will only the property of complainants; that is, t4e land of no other party or parties will be appropriated thereunder, and the only lots bounding and abutting on said proposed extension, and supJect' to the foot-front assessment, made to cover the costs aild expenses inci· dent to and resulting from the appropriation and the improvement of the street, are the remaining lands of complainants, left. carving out tpe st,re(lt. Thus, under the practical and. actual operation of said ordi.· n.ance, there will be taken from or off the land of complainant Scott 33 in width adjoining the center line of said proposed extension, leav-. i.qg him a narrow strip of ground with a frontage on said street Or extenof 150 feet in length and 17 feet in width. This 17 feet in width. at one end of the strip, has a frontage on Scottwood aV'enue, (a street crossing said Woodr1.lff avenue extension at right angles.) From the' land qf complainant Calkins there will be appropriated, at the west end o(the proposed extension, a parcel of ground 66 feet in width, leaving he.r on !lither side thereof a frontage of 75 feet; and from the'east end of her property there will be taken 33 feet in width, leaying her a frontage on said extension,of 150 feet. The frontage on said extended avenue of complainant Scott's remaining ground will.be 150 feet, and of complainant Calkins will be 300 feet. This .frontage of complainants,being the only property bounding and abutting on said;,proposed extension, is by the: