the libelants' costs, so far as allowed herein, Hughes is entitled to be exempted from further liability nnder the statute. , As against Sherman, the libelants are entitled to a decree for one-third the total loss, viz., $4,4'40;:09, less the Said sum of$611.05, already received to his credit from Carter, and less, also, one-third of the sum already received from the Carler on account of Hughes, or$339.47j that is, to a decree for·$3,489.27', with interest from March 8,1886, less onethird of any further sum that may be'reco'\7ered from Hughes under this for one-halfof any deficiency uncollected decreej and to a further from the Doris Eckhoff on-her share of the damages under this decree. As the libelants sue for both themselves and the cargo owners, and the latter have not perSdnallyintervened, and as there is no evidence that the libelants are not responsible, and able to pay their share of the whole loss,there cannot be any decree against the Doris Eckhoff in this' suit in favor of the cargo owners,beyond the amount above specified, with inwhioh will be held payable on aecbunt The cargo own.. ei'S 'must look to the libelants for the balance of their claims. No decree can be entered in suit 'in their favor against the libelants personally. A decree may be prepared in accordance herewith, cOlitaininga further provision, also, that the Doris Eckhoff; on paying for any deficiency collected of Hughes arid Sherman under this decree, shall be entitled "pro tanto to the benefit of this decree as against them. The costs up fu the interlocutory decree are divided. The Warren, 25 Fed. Rep. 782. Costs. The libelants are entitled- to recover their
REDMOND fl. THE HOWARD CARROLL.
(Dl.8t7ict Oourt, E. D. New York.
February 8, 1800.)
A tug with a tow, whicb, in a narrow cbannel, takes and maintains a course on the chance that a sailing vessel, beating in plain sight of ber, and which she is
bound and able to avoid, will know her intention, and break her tack on being sig. naled, is in fault if collision ensue.
SAME-SIzE OP TUG.
Tugs which undertake to tow large railroad floats about the harbor of New York must be of sufficient power to handle their floats easily and promptly, and able to avoid Bailing vessels which they may meet in the course of their navigation.
In Admiralty. Action for damages occasioned by collision between the schooner Early Bird and a tow in charge of the steam-tug Howard Carroll. Goodrich, Deady « Goodrich, for libelants. Hy1n.nd « Zabriskie, for claimant.
JReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
BENEDICT, J. This action the owners of the schooner Early,B,ird to reCOVE;lr damages to their vessel occasioned by a collision that vessel, and 'lj. tow, consisting of, the steam-tug Howard Carcars. roll, at the time towinge,long7side oCher a 'car-float loaded, The tow was pound down the East river, between, Blackwell's island and :New York, the. schooner beating up 'the channel., The only questionin the case is whether, under the circumstances proved, the ordinary .which it is thedqty of a steamer to avoid a salling vessel, is to rule, he applied to this case of The A. P. Oranme:r,l Fed. Rep. 2M, (de'cided by this court ip:J"anuary, 1880,) affirmed,' 8 Fed., Rep. 523, is relieilon by the claimants as authority for rejecting the applieation of the' rule,in a case like this." The case of The A. P · Oranme:r was a very diflerE)nt' case. In that.case a tow, consisting of two tugs having 17 <lanaI-boats in tow, was rqn,.into hy a schooner sailing free, and able, by a slight change, to avqi<f. tow without difficulty or delay. In tbis <lase the sailing vessel beating in a narrow channel,. where, in order to do anything to avoid the tow, it would be necessary for her to shorten , The, stean;ler"on the other hand, had but a single vessel in her tow along-side, /lond w!l,S; able to avoid the sailingvessel" tacking in plain of .means to avoid the, sailing vp,sSf3I, sight ahead of her., as she OlIght to have the tug took and maintained her course upon the chance that the salHllg vessel wO\lJd know her intention, and would the tug was not break her tack upon qeing signaled bY,the tug.: able, through lack o(power, to control the float, she was nevertheless in fault; for the safety of the harbor requires that the tugs which undertake to tow the large floats, now so largely employed to transport railroad cars about the harbor, should be of sufficient power to handle their floats easily and nromptly,and able to avoid sailing vessels when of the harbor. The they are met in the libelants are entitled to a.decree.
AUSTIN t:l. FELTON.
AUSTIN 'lJ. FELTON
(otreuit Court, N. D. lllinoi8. January 11,1800.)
In consideration, of a deed of certain land, defendant assigned to complainant what purported to be II voucher of a claim against the United States. The conditionsl;Jrescribed by Rev. St. U. S. § 3477, for transferring such II claim, had not been comphedwith. The voucher transferred to complainant was not the one issued ,to the original claimants, but bad been surreptitiously taken from the files of the congressionaJ. committee on claims, which defendant probably knew, as also the fact that the claim it represented had been disallowed by the federal supreme court. that the transfer to complainant did, not give him even an equitable right to the payment of the voucher by special act of congress or otherwise, and that the deed was without consideration. .
In Equity. Bill to set aside a deed. Charles H.Aldrich, for complainant. Bisbee, Ahrens & Decker, for defendants. BLODGETT, J. '1'his is a bill in equity to set aside a deed made March 6, 1886, by the complainant to the defendant Felton, of a tract of 351 12-100 acres of land situated in Marshall county, in this state, on the ground that the conveyance of said land to Felton was without consideration, and was obtained through fraud practiced on complainant and complainant's agent, one Henry S. Austin. It appears from the proof in this case that the complainant was induced to convey the land in question to the defendant Felton' by an assignmentto him,(complainant,) as valid and genuine, of what purported to ben voucher for $10,350, issued December 28,1865, by an agent of the treasury department of the United States, to W. H. Whi.teside & Co., for charges incurred upon the seizure of certain cotton claimed by one C. M. Hervey. It is also charged that, within a few days after receiving the conveyance of the land in question from complainant, Felton gaged the same to the defendant Gibson, to secure the payment of $22,. 000, and, after making such mortgage, conveyed the land to one Kittredge, anti Gibson and Kittredge were both made parties defendant to the bil1;but bya stipulation filed in the case it is admitted that this mortgage has been released, and the land reconveyed by Kittredge to Felton, and the case is to be treated and considered as between complainant and Felton alone, as if the mortgage to Gibson and conveyance . to. Kittredge had never been made. Section 3477, Rev. St. U. S., makes null and void the transfer of any claim against the United States, or of any share thereof,or i.nterest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the considEilration thflrefor, except upon compliance with certain specially presc.:ribed conditions, after the claim has been allowed; and the proof shows that this voucher had never been allowed by the proper officer of the government, and that the, conditions and requirements to make a valid transferbacl,pot been complied with; and it is therefore insisted on the that no title to the indebtedness evidenced. by said v.41F.no.4-11