patent; and, under such circumstances, it is quite immaterial that the application for the reissue was made within two years from the time of the original grant. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 3.54, .5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174; Coon v. Wilson, 113 U. S. 268, .5 Sup. Ct. Rep . .537. The question of fact presented by the defense of the priority of invention of Leinbach is close; but the conclusion is reached that this defense has not been so cogently established as to overthrow the presumption arising from the granting of a patent. It will not be profitable to enter upon an analysis of the testimony. It must suffice to state that the testimony ot Mr. Edson, Mr. Allison, Mr. Brightman, and Mr. Fletcher, to the effect that Deering exhibited to them, respectively, previously to March, 1878, bags substantially like the bag f)f the patent, is accepted as true. The usual decree for an injunction and an accounting is ordered for the complainants, but without costs, and conditioned upon the filing of a proper disclaimer of the second claim.
THE EXCELSIOR. BRYANT v. THE EXCELSIOR.
(Circuit Court, E.
July 10, 1889.)
COI,LIRIO::"I-BETWEEN STEAM AND SAII,-LIGHTS-NEW YORK BAY.
A steamer, properly manned. was going down the bay of New York, bound to sea. The nigllt was clear. but dark. and the steamer. heading S. by W" was running at about 9 or 10 knots per hour. The master noticed a white light ahead. but upon examination could discover no colored lights. He concluded that the light was on a vessel going in the same direction with the steamer, determining to pass on the west side, changed his course half a point. After going ahead a few minutes, he discovered that something was wrong, and immediately stopped his engine, and reversed, but it was too late to avoid collision. The vess:el carrying the white light proved to be a schooner bound into port, heading N. by E. After seeing the steamer's lights she luffed a little. Held, that the collision was caused by the faults of the schooner in exhibiting a white light, and in failing to display a green light, as required by international rules 1885. Affirming 33 Fed. Hep. 554.
In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. See 33 Fed: Rep. 554. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for libelants. Charles H. 'J'weed and Robert D. Benedict, for claimant. BLATCH}WRD, Justice. In this case I find the following facts:
1. On the evening of December 14, 1886, the steam-ship Excelsior;
was going down the bay of New York, bound to sea. She was well and competently manned, tackled; and appareled, and her lights were set and burning according to law. Her master, who was a competent navigator, was on the bridge, and in charge of her navigation. She had a competent lookout,-the first matc,-properly placed: forward, and a·t;.'
tendiJlig: to his uties ,andcoID were in charge of her wheel and of her engine. 2, The :n.ight was clear but dark, there being no moon, and the wind was about west, a fresh breeze. The ,tide was, flood. ,3. ,The stearn-ship was running at the rate of about 9 or 10 knots an hour. She was going down the channel below the Narrows, heading about :south by west, and having the Chapel Hill and Conover Beacon range-lights ahead pf:her and in-range. 4., The lookout of the Excelsipr,and' her master, saw a white light ahead of her, ,R little on bel" port PQw., It was reported by the lookout, and examined by the master,with his night glasses, and was made out by him to be a white light. No colored light was visible. The master of the Excelsior concluded, as he had the right to do, that the light was upon a vessel which was going ,down the bay in the same direction the Excelsior was going. This light was seen at a sufficient distance to have enabled the Excelsior to keep clear of the vessel, if the latter had not misled the Excelsior as to her course. 5. As there were visible the lights of other vessels coming up on the eastward side of that light, the master of the Excelsior determined to pass the vessel which carried that light on the west side of her, and he accordingly ported the Excelsior's wheel, and changed her course half a point to the westward, and then steadied her wheel, and went on for several minutes,when, from the appearance of the vessel and the reflection of lights upon her, he was led to think there was wrong, and the helm of the Excelsior was at once put hard a-port, and her engine was immediately stopped and reversed. 6. Before her headway could be completely stopped, her stem struck the vessel on the starboard side, aft of the fore rigging, at the angle shown on the diagram of the witness Reed, and cut in to the main hatch. 7. The vessel was the schooner Hannah F. Carlton, belonging to the libelants. She was going about five knots an hour, bound up the bay, .and had been heading on a course of about north by east or north half east. After the Excelsior's lights were seen by her, she luffed up a little. 8.The schooner ,did not exhibit to the Excehlior the green light required by law. 9. The schooner exhibited to the Excelsior, before the collision, a white light: ' 10. The master of the Excelsior was misled by the exhibition of such white light, and by the· failure to exhibit a green light, on the part of tile schooner. 11. The nlea!lure adopted by the 11)U8te1' of the Excelsior, of porting his wheel, would, have been suffiGient for the avoiding of the schooner, if the latter had been going dovW the bay, as was. indicated by the failure to show: a green light and the exhibition of the white light, instead of coming u.p the bay. 12. The schooner was at. all times before the collision 011 the port bow of the Excelsior.
On the foregoing facts I find the following conclusions onaw: 1. The schooner was in fault in exhibiting to the Excelsior such white light. 2. The schooner was in fault in failing to exhibit to the Excelsior II green light, as required by law. . 3. The collision was caused by such fault or faults on the part of the schooner. 4. The master of the Excelsior had the right to understand, from seeing a white light and not seeing a green light on the schooner. that she was not coming towards the Excelsior, but was going away from her, on the same course. 5. The Excelsior was free from fault. 6. The libel should be dismissed, with costs of the district court, taxed at $281.20, and costs of this court, to be taxed.
THE BRITANNIC. THE CEWIC. BRITISH & FOREIGN MARINE INS. Co., Limited, et al. v. THE BRITANNIC AND THE CELTIC. UNIVERSAL MARINE INs. Co. v. SAME.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
July 3, 1889.)
SPEED-CHANGE OF COURSE-REVERSING.
In fog so thick that vessels cannot be seen within a quarter of a mile of each other, when fog-signals are heard almost ahead and near, (in this case within three-quarters of a mile.) steamers proceeding at about full speed are hound at once to stop and reverse. and not to change their courses without knowing the position or direction of the other.
2. SAME. The steamer B., with the libelants' goods on board, bound from New York to Liverpool, and the C., from Liverpool to New York, both belonging to the White Star Line, came in collision at sea. about 365 miles out from New York. The C. was in a dense fog, the B. in a fog less dense, but the vessels could not be seen until within 300 or 400 yards of each other. They were going under a full spe'ed "stand by," from 13t to 14t knots each. Fog-signals were first heard about two minutes before collision. The C., on hearing the B.'s first signal, slowed; on hearing the second signal, starboarded; and, when the B. was seen, she at once reversed, about half a minute before collision. The B.· on hearing the C.'s first signal ahead, first ported, and then came up towards her course, and, on hearing the second signal a minute after the first, hard a-ported. and kept on at full speed till the collision. There would have been no collision had either vessel kept her course, or reversed at once. Held, both in fault, (a) for immoderate speed in fog; (b) for not reducing speed as much as possible when the first signals were heard; (c) for keeping on and changing their courses, without knowing the position or heading of the other. 3. SAME-BILLS OF LADINa-ExCEPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE-NEOLIGENCE OF ANOTHER VESSEL OF SAME OwNERS.
Exceptions in the bills of lading of damage "by rollision, * * * even when' occasioned by negligence of the master or other servants of the shipowners," app!3' only to negligence of the master or ship-owners' servants connected with the vessel on which the goods were shipped, or with the performance of the. contract of transportation, and do ;not exempt the owners. from liability for the negligence of another ship belonging to the same owners by which thll gopds were damaged.