'l'h;elsa(J4 Bell" 9 ;Fed.Rep.· 4.1abama, Fed·.Rep, $47, 'J!he .Joha/fl/f1.e AU9¥8te, 21 fed. Rep. 134, 140j ')!he Fe4. · Rep. 791 t Henry 29 Fed. 601. Though tlle p)l,tce o,f anchorage was not an unusual one, it was not, in the case. of 8upra, a place where steamers were unaccustomed to come. On th,econtrary, it was' the daily uSu;+1 course of the Westfield. .The necessity for , the Lillietosho"Y a light was therefore imperative. This is not denied. The evidence indicates that a lantern had been previously hung,up,but , the light must have gone out before the Westfield came along,.' I cann9t impute any blame to the Westfield for taking her usuirl'cotii'Se to Stapleton, or in not anticipating the presence of the pilot-boat when no light · Nor is there sufficient evidence to satisfy me that the Lillie, , without a light, could have been seen from the Westfield any sooner she was seen; or that the Westfield could have taken any more etl'ebtive means to avoid her after seeing her. The Westfield had a right to pur, sue her usual course to her landing; and I do not see in this ca:se' any drcumstant:es that required her, as a matter of prudent navigation;'t.o · abate ber ordinary somewhat reduced speed, when going to lie up; :sIm. ply upon the risk that there might be in herpath'a vessel that, invib· latiQn of the rules, 'exhibited no anchor light. In' her usual course she had a right to go at her usual reduced speed.l:n not maintaining l a light the risk rested wholly upon the Lillie, and she must aooordingly bear the blame. InthecasesQf Steam-Ship Co.v. OlJ.ldlffWood, 19JHow. 241" and The Drew, 35 Fed .. Rep'. 789,thesteamer was held liable for · being much out of her proper and usual track. ' In The IsaMBell, 9 Fed. ,Rep. 842, where the steamer wa.s not out of her usual course, she was ,acquitted,:and that judgment was affirmed in, thil!l circuit. This case is substantially like the latter. The libeUs dismissed, with costs.
C. & A.
(Oif'ouu Court. 8. D. New.
,COLLISION-BETWEEN STEAHERAND FERRy-BOAT.
The steamer C.. while coming down the North river and appro8ching.tier wharf in New city,.wauun into by the fel'ry·boat B.. the course' of the C·.wsslai(l dil'ect for her berth, Which tpok her Mr088 th-e bowBof the 'B.; but thin the latter did 'notr6versenrttil'within' 200 feet of the place of collision; and there was evidence showing that the intention of the C. to keep on her course was manifeRted by disregarding the repeated signals of the B. Held, that the B. was in fault, although she had the right of way.
In Admiralty. Fed. Rep. 660.
Libel for damages on appeal from district comt, 34
Collision between the steamer Catskill and the ferry-boat Baltimore, the latter having the right of way. The district court divided the damages. 84 Fed. Rep. 660. The ferry-boat appealed. No new testimony was taken in the circuit court. . . P. Cantine and H. D. Van (Hden, for the Catskill, cited: Railroad 00. V. The Isaac L. Fisher, 29 Fed. Rep. 644; Tlte Aurania, Id. 123; The FredW.' Ohase, 31 Fed. Rep. 91; Murphy v.l'he (heenpoint, Id. 231; The Ovtumbia, 29 Fed. Rep. 719; The Beryl, L. R. 9 Prob. Di v. 137; The 5 App. Cas. 876; ,Wells v. Armst1'ong, 29 Fed. Rep. 218; The Margaret .J-:Sanj'ord, 30 Fed. Rep. 714. Henry Ward, for the Baltimore, cited: The B. B. Saunders, 25 Fed. Hep. 727; The Britannia, 34 Fed. Rep. 552; The U. S. Grant, 6 Ben. 467; The Free State, 91 U. S. 203; The st. Johns, · 34 Fed. Rep. 763.
J. That the Catskill was infault is not disputed, and she hall not appealed. The Baltimore was found by the district judge to be in fault for not,sooner reversing. Whether this fault is properly chargeto her is, in this case, a question of fact rather than law. Her navigator insists t}lat he stopped and reversed as soon as the Catskill mani. fested an intention to cross his hows.-an intention first disclosed to him, · as he claims, by a sheer in towards the New York shore. The witnesses for :the Catskill. however, insist that she laid her course direct for her · berth at the Jay,.Street pier, North river, a course which plainly took her directly acrOSS the bows of the Baltimore, and that she did not sheer in towards the,New York shore. untilimmediately before the collision, and long after ,herintention not to give way to the Baltimore had been disclosed py .her course, and by her neglect to answer the latter's repeated signals. Upon this disputed question offact the district judge has found that the course of the Catskill was plain, nearing the shore generally on a direct line from her position when fir!:!t sighted to her wharf; and, also on conflicting evidence, that the Baltimore did not reverse until within 200 feet of the place of collision. Under such a state of facts the Baltimore is clearly in fault. Her navigator was not surprised by any sudsupposed intended to obey den indication that another craft, which the rules, meant to violate them. On the contrary, with a very plain intimation that the other vessel was willfully or heedlessly continuing on a course which made collision imminent, he kept on, in the hope that she would at the last momen,t discover her errqr, and seek to rectify it. For thus lreeping on until the safety Jimit was reached and passed the _,i' district judge held the navigator of the BaltiIl10re in fault, and his decision'is affirmed.. .Usual decree. .Costs· of circuiticourt to the Catskill. ....
STANBROUGH V. COOX.
COOK et al.
'(Clircuit Court, N. D. Iowa, E. D. April 20, 1889.)
REMOVAL OF CAUSEs-RIGHT OF REMOVAL.
In cases coming within the removal act of 1887, § 2. c1. 8. providing that suits "which include a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determiued as between them, are removable by either one or more of the defendants actually interested." the right of removal is given to defendll.uts interested in the controversy, irrespective of their residence or citizenship.
Plaintiff. a citizen of New York, brought his action in Iowa for the recovery of the immediate possession of certain realty and damages for injury,to buildings and for con version of crops. Citizens of Iowa and of Vermont 19'el'e made defendants. It was not averred that they claimed title jointly or tInder a common source. or bad committed the injuries jointly, but the peti. tion was drawn under the Iowa statutes for settling all adverse claims of title on the part of any and all the defendants. An amended petition set out that certain of the Iowa defendants had executed a leasein their own right to the other Iowa defendant, and that he held possession under this lease. Held,·that there was a separable controversy between the plaintiff and the Iowa defendants, which was removable on the application of the alleged lessee.
.Henderson, Hurd, Daniels &- Kiesel, for defendants.
SHffiAfl, J. At the March term, 1889, of the district court of.Delaware county, Iowa, a petition was filed by the plaintiff, R. M. Stanbrough, in which he claimed to be entitled to immediate possession of certain real estate situated in Delaware county, as the owner tltereof in fee-simplei that Edward.Cook was in possession thereof as a. tenant; that he had converted to his own use growing crops on the property, and- had damaged the buildings; that for the use of the property and the damagl*j named the defendant Cook was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $1',000; that the said Cook has been in the occupancy of the premises since the 15th day' of September, 1888, claiming to hold the same as tenant of one or more of his co-defendants. The parties other than nRllled as defendants are Susan Daniels, Lucy Daniels, and the firm of Henderson, Hurd, Daniels & Kiesel. The prayer 'is for a judgment awarding the immediate possession of the realty to the plaintiff and for $1,000 damages against the detimdant Cook, the same to be binding upon ,such of c.o-defendants as are by said Cook or by their own pleadings to be the landlord of said Cook. Under the provisions of the Code of Iowa, the petition is in form sufficient to enable the plaintiff to _establls)J, if the factsjusti(yit, the vaiidity of his title,ngainst all the deobtain an order 8,nd writ to put him into the immediate posses,sio,n of the premises, and to a judgment for damages aga;nst the defendant ·Cook. When the action was brought, and at all since then, .the. plaintiff waj;l a pitizen of the state of New. YOl"k,the.defellduuts
.Calvin Yoran and Powers &- Lacy, for plaintiff·