JOHNSON 11. MAYOR, ETC., OF NEW YORL
The remaining question is that of the damages. These must be such as will furnish complete indemnification to the libelant for his loss. The Aaas, 93 U. S. 302. The items which enter into the estimate of damages are the actual cost of repairs, compensation for the loss of time within which the repairs should have been made, the reimbursement for the expenses incurred in saving property, and thus reducing the amount of the loss. Fannie TuthilJ" 17 Fed. Rep. 87; The Venus, rd. 925j' Vantine v. The Lake, 2 Wall. Jr. 52. These damages must not be the result of conjecture; they must be actual. There is no room in this case for punitive damages. The evidence for the libelant, on these points, consists simply of his statement. No receipt8 nor memoranda nor items are produced. He testifies that so much money was paid for searching for the anchors, the collision having torn the dredge from its moorings; that so much money was expended for beaching the dredge and repairing it; that the loss of service of the dredge was 9 working days, with an average of 9 tons of phosphate rock per day. There is nothing before the court which can enable it to test the reasonableness or the accuracy of these staterrlents and estimates. More light is needed on these points, and I will refer the matter. The libelant actually ceased work forl5 days. Four of these days were consumed in consultation with his attorney, and in deciding on his course. The restitution and repairs were made during the 10 days subsequent. He can only charge for these 10 days, or for 80 many of them as were actually required for the restitution and .repairs. He charges certain items of personal expense. If his presence contributed to the work, and was necessary for this' purpose, that is a proper charge. If, however, he visited the place simply to s.ee how the work progressed, it is not a proper charge. Let the case be referred to C. R. Miles, Esq., to inquire and report such evidence as will state in detail the items of damage, and the reasonable time and money expended in repairing the same.
(District Court, S. D. New YO'1'1G. December 8. 1889.)
CoLLIeION-BETWEEN STEAM Am> SAIL-FATLURB TO BACK.
Libelants'. lighter wa.s beating down the East liver, and coming down the etream, astern of her, came the respondents' steamer, D. The lighter went about when oft Seventeenth etreet, on the New York side, aud ran some distance out into the river, when the steamer collided with her, striking her on the port side. The steamer saw the lighter in time to have avoided her. The lighter was prevented from mnning further towards New York by reason of an eddy near the shore. Held, that the collision was caused by the steamer's failure to stop and back with reasonable promptness, and the steamer was answerable for the lighter's damage. by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
In Admiralty. Action for damage by collision. A. W. Seaman and 'We T. Cox, fodihelants. A. H. OZark, Corp. Counsel, (Mr. Oarmatt, of counsel,) for respondents.
BROWN, J. On the2d of NovembeJ:', 1888, as the libelants' lighter, Styles Hall, was beating down the East river, with the ebb-tide, against a south-west wind, she came in collision, when off Seventeenth street, with the steamer, the Dassouri,and sustained some damages, for which this .libel was filed. .Both vessels 'had come fJ;om Newtown creek. The lighter had come across the river upon her port tack. . She tacked 200 or 300 yards from the 'New York shore, and, as she was coming about, first observed the steamer several hundred yards further out in the river, and above her. She soon filled away, and within two or three minutesafterwardsw'as struck upon the port side by the steamer. The testimony on behalfof the respOndents, as well as of the libelants, is that the lighter ran at least an eighth of a mile after tacking before the collision; and the distance from: the shore to the point of collision confirms this .estimate. It was the duty of the steamer to keep out of the way of thl' lighter. There were no other vessels near to prevent her doing so. The lighter was seen fronithe steamer before she tacked, and when she tacked. The steamer was bound for the Seventeenth-Street dock; and there can be no question that when the lighter was seen to be tacking there was abundant time and space for the steamer to keep out of her way. This is proved, not only from the distance the lighter sailed upon her statboard tack before collision, but from the consideration of the additional time it would take her to come about. There was nothing to require the steamer to pass ahead of ,the lighter's course. Before collision the steamer backed, but too late. It was evidently a case of miscalculation on the steamer's part, and the respondents are answerable therefor. ' The lighter, doubtless, might have run a little further towards the shore; but there was an eddy there of some breadth, and the lighter, uncertain of its extent, was entitled to keep away from it, by a sure margin. Had she failed to run out her tack,and come about unnecessarily, so near the steamer as not to leave the latter reasonable and abundant time to keep out of her way, the lighter must have been held in fault; but I cannot find that to be the fact in this case. The time and distance were such that, had the steamer stopped or. backed with reasonable promptness after the lighter was seen to be in the way, there would have been no collision. , . The fault, therefore, must be charged to the steamer, and a lowed'ifor the libelant,S for the sum. of $127.65,the daxnagesproved, amounting, with to $135.81, with costs.
THE DAISY DAY. MARINE
'/1. THE DAISY DAY.
(CfJrcutt Oourt, W. D. Michigan, 8. D. September 28, 1889.)
MABITI'Mlll LIENS-INsURANCE PREMIUMS.
law gives no maritime lien on a vessel for unpaid premiums on insur-
Though',a state law confers a lien on a vesselfor nnpaidJ,remlUms on insurauce thereon, such lien is subordinate to maritime liens for suppuea and repairs, and for damages from negligent ,
. In Admiralty. Application for of proceeds. \ On appeal from district court, ante, 538. M. O. A. A. Krause, for original libelants. '. Fletcher Wanty, for Marine Insurance Company. Peter Doran, for other intervenors.
JACKSON, J. The decreeof the district court, directing the.distribution of the proceeds arising from the sale of the propeller Daisy Day, is only appealed from by the intervening libelant, the Marine Insurance Company. The decree below ordered the fund to be distributed as follows, viz.: First, in payment of seamen's wages, with costs; second, in payment of damages awardedG. F. Gunderson for injuries sustained by his towage by the Daisy Day, with costs; schooner G. Barber from th,ird, in payment of claims for supplies and repairs, (foreign and domestic claims of this class being placed upon the same footing, under the authority of The GenP.ral Burnmde, 3 Fed. Rep. 228, and The Guiding Star, 18 Fed. Rep. 263-269,) with costs; and, lastly, in payment of theMarine Insurance Company's claim for unpaid premiums on insurance upon said propeller Daisy Day, said insurance having been taken out by and for the benefit of the owners of said propeller. The fund will be almost, if not altogether, exhausted before reaching the claim of the Marine Insurance Company, which alone appeals from said order of distribution. This appeal of the insurance company does Dot bring up or make it necessary to consider the correctness olthe order of distribution as between the seamen and Gunderson and the material-men. Those parties all acquiesce in the decree. But the Marine Insurance Company plains of the position assigned it in the distribution. It contends that its debt for unpaid premiums should rank and be paid equally with the claims for supplies and repairs, and should have priority or precedence over the claim of said Gunderson for damages sustained by him from negligent towage of his schooner G. Barber by the Daisy Day. In support of these claims on behalf of the insurance company it is urgedF'irBt, that by the general admiralty law of the United States, said insurance company had a maritime lien on the Daisy Day for unpaid premiums on the policy of marine insurance, which the owners of said pro-