. WHITJi1 tI. THll: EMMA.
result in a lien On the ship, was ended. By the seizure all persons were notified· of the change of control and possession. The proof shows that Martin, Taylor & Ceo were actually notified. While the vessel was in the custody of the law it is doubtful whether on any account or for any service (except,perhaps, salvage or collision) any lien could arise on the vessel. I think, however, that Martin, Taylor & Co. are subrogated to the rights of the stevedore to whom they paid the money, and that they have a statutory lien therefor to be satisfied out of the remnantes, if any.
Oo'Url,E. D. Lo'UiBiana. January. 1889.) . . MARITIME' LmNs-SERVICES. . " Libelililt was employed by the owner of a boat to run 'It. for her. tIe did Dot act'in any particular capacity, but performed all kinds of services, some· times hunting up business for the owner, and doing work not connected with the management of the boat. There was no contract as to how much he should be paid for, his ,services, Held, that he did not have a lien on the boat for luch services, as it W811 evident that he relied upon the of for his pay., .
In Agm,iralty.On appeal from district court. T. M. Gill, for libelant. Miller F'i,n'M!l, for claimants.
tIe river. Dllar the mouth of Black river, to recover tile steam-tug Emma. I was to go .and get it, overhaul it, repair it, and run it for her. I went up to make arrangements to bUy her, and that night, when I was there, and made arrangements to buy her, she thawed out, her water-pipe burst, and she sank, -that was after I had made arrangements to bUy herst a certain price, she sank,-and we bad to haul hel' up on the bank. Idid it with what assistance I could get there. After raising her, I found the rudder was broken. After gettinK up steam and repairing her, I had to overhaul her machinery. I did it with the assistance of a blacksmith. I then brought her over here at Freetown, in the port of New Orleans, just across the river. There we hauled her on the ways, and I helped to overhaul the engines. The painting I did all myself. After getting through with that, I took her to Bayou Sara, and I done very well. I was there one week, and I cleared sixty-fi ve dollars, or something in that neighborhood. On the Sunday night after that she took iire, after I had been there a week; and through some of my friends. four or .five of them, <it was late at night,) and myself, we saved the hull. The Dext
PARDEE, J. Libel in rem for services as pilot and general mariner on board the tug Emma from on or about December 25, 1886, to on or about Noven;J.ber 15, 1887. The steam-tug Emma iaa vessel of three and three-quarter tOllS. The. libelant's testimony is, substantially as follows: "I 8ma and carpenter. On the 25th'of .December,1886,lwas employed by MissTheresa Mooneyto go to the mouth of Lit-
day I shoveled the cinders out of her, and overhauled the machinery again, and brought her back to Freetown, or McDonoughville, in this port of New Orl",ans. Here we hauled her on the ways .again, and we rebuilt her again. After her again, we took her to Donaldsonville, and we ran her there three or fOllr weeks. I then brought the boat dowuto the port of New Orleans and McDonoughville, and laid her up for some time. After that there came a storm,-I think it was in August or September,-and on that day she came near going, too; but, through the exertions of myself and friends, we saved her. And Miss Mooney sent down that day to find if I was there to take care of her boat, alld she found that I was there, and did save her. I got a tug to pump th", water out of her. After the storm, I got her all r1ght, and took her over the river. During all this time, I acted in the capacity, and was deckhand, engineer, pilot, head cook, carpenter, painter, or anything you want tu call it; I done it all. My services continued up to about the neighborhood of the 10th of December; I don't say exactly. They were worth fifty dollars a month. During part of the time I worked under Miss Mooney's directions, on the ferry-boat Jerome Hanley,-about two weeks, I should think. Under the directions of Miss Mooney, I went all around town to see if I could find work for her; and further, under her directions, I helped her to sell the boat to the cla.imants. I represented to the claimants the condition of the boat. I did not represent to them that she was in debt. After I left the service of Miss Mooney, I saw the claimants' agent,-met him on the street. He said to me. · That boat was in debt.' That was about the 15th or 17th of December, 1887. He said that hoat was in debt. and I told him I knew that. That is the first he ever said· about it. I remarked to him at the time that I thought the lady was responsible for all she owed. I never told him before nor after the sale that I had a claim upon the boat for services." There is some evidence in the case which contradicts the libelant in some particulars; but, in my opinion, it is not necessary to consider it. The libelant's deposition may be taken as his case, and consideration of it shows that he was acting as the general agent and servant of Miss Mooney in all his transactions with regard to this steam-tug, and was relying upon her faith and credit for his pay, and not in any way upon any maritime lien upon the tug. I am clear that from his services no maritime lien resulted. According to his own statement, his services were of all kinds; he was master, crew, ship's husband. He had no contract fixing the amount he was to be paid. He was sometimes employed with the tug; sometimes off from the tug; sometimes in the city of New Orleans, hunting up business; and sometimes a mere watchman. Without regarding the question as to whether or not he could be estopped by his silence at the time of the sale from claiming a maritime lien, it is sufficient, to dispose of the case, that he had no lien. A decree will be entered dismissing the libel, with costs of both courts.
OF MILWAUKEE "'.THE CURTIS, THE CAMDEN, AND THE WELCOME"
(District Court, E.,.D. Wisconsin. February 5, 1889.)
AnMffiALTy-JURIBDICTION-'!'ORTS-INJURY TO BRIDGE-STATE LIENS.
A court of admiralty has no jurisdiction of a libel in rem against vessels nav· igating a river, for damage, negligently caused by them to a swing-bridge resting on a pier, constructed on the bed of the river; nor can a state statute creating a lien for all injuries done by vessels to persons or property confer such jurisdiction.
In Admiralty. Libel in rem by the city of Milwaukee against the steam-barge Curtis, the schooner Camden, and the steam-tug Welcome, for injuries to a bridge. Eugene S. Elliott, for libelant. Alfred H. Bright and M. O. Krause, for respondents.
, JENKINS, J. The libelant, a municipal corporation, lawfully constructed and maintained a bridge spanning the navigable waters of the Milwaukee river. The structure was a swing-bridge, its center resting upon a stone pier constructed upon the bed of the river. On the '18th of October, 1888, the bridge was damaged by the alleged negligent conduct of the vessels, respondents, then navigating the river. The libel is in rem to recover the damages incurred. It is objected, for the respondents that the court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter. In cases of tort locality is the test of jurisdiction in the admiralty. The ultimate judicial authority has determined the principle that the true meaninll; of the rule of locality is that, although the origin of the wrong is on the water, yet, if the consummation and substance of the injury are on the land, a court of admiralty has not jurisdiction; that the place or locality of the injury is the place or locality of the thing injured, and not of the agent causing the injury.- The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; &parte Insurance Co., 118 U. S. 610, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25. Within this settled principle a tort is maritime, and within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, when the injury is to a vesselafloat ,,although the negligence causing the injury originated on land. The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213; Leonard v. Decker, 22 Fed. Rep. 741. In the former case it was ruled that an action in personam would lie against the owners of the bridge, because the injury was consummate upon navigable waters, being inflicted upon a movable thing engaged in navigation; but that a proceeding in rem against the bridge was not maintainable, because a maritime lien can in navigation, or upon things only exist upon movable things which are the subjects of commerce on the high seas or navigable waters. And so an injury happening through defimlt of the master to one upon a vessel discharging cargo at a wharf to which she was securely Inoored, is within the admiralty jurisdiction, (Leathersv. Blessing, 105 U. S. 626;) but otherwise, if the injury occurred to one. upon the wharf, (The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. Rep. 137.) In the latter case there is an. inv.37F.no.13-45