PARKER V. 'rHE LITTLE ACME.
leased whenever the centrifugal force caused by the rapid swinging of the arm is sufficient to carry the pivoted carrier to the point at which tha discharge of the target, is produced. The release may take place before the carrier reaches its extreme limit. The defendant's trap contains a self-acting target-releasing device, constructed upon the same general principles set forth in the Stock patent, and is au infringement of it. A decree will be allowed sustaining the validity of the reissued patent sued upon, and finding that the defendant infringes the first, third, and fourth claims thereof, and a reference to a master for an accounting of the profits and damages resulting from such infringement. At the October term, 1890, a petition for rehearing was allowed on account of newly-discovered evidence of prior use at Knoxville, Tenn. The case will be heard with this new evidence at l!'ebruary term, 1891.
(Dr.strl.ct Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. October 11, 1890.)
Where the sherilI, by virtue of a writ of execution, seized a steam-boat, and, after taking actual possession, ran the boat a few days without the consent or knowledge of the owner, one who acted as master and pilot during that time must look to the sheri:lY for his compensation, and has no lien against the boat. S. SAME-LIENS BY STATE LAws. The Pennsylvania act which gives liens against domestic vessels navigating the riverll Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio does not apply to a boat running exclusively on the Beaver river, a tributary of the Ohio.
ILuuTIHE LIENS-SEIZURE 01' VESSEL-RIGHTS 01' MASTER.
In Admiralty. Barton &- Barton, for libelant. Jamea R. Macfarlane, for respondent. ACHESON, J. It appears by the libelant's own admission, and other.he was hired by the day; and it is also shown that he was wise, paid by his employer, Mr. Mardorf, the owner of the boat, in full for his services up to the time (November 7, 1889) when the sheriff, acting under judicial process, took the boat in execution. Presumably it was a lawful seizure, but, however this may be, the sheriff took actual posses&ion of the Little Acme under the writ in his hands. Then, without the consent or knowledge of the owner, but on his own responsibility, he ran the boat two days, and then tied her up. Now the libelant knew of the seizure, and for payment for his services during the short time the sheriff undertook to run the boat he must look to that officer, whose bailiff or servant he was. TroviUo v. Tilford, 6 Watts, 468,471. Most certainly, after November 9, 1889, the libelant did not serve as master or pilot, for the boat did not run at all, and she remained u'Jder execution. Upol?: Pfoofs, it is not apparent to me that after the last-mentioned
date the libelallt rendered whatever for'wbich .the owner of the' boat ilt aoawerable; but\'iflht\ did., those were' not ofa maritime ftnd:arenot theisubject of a lien. ,,' ,;. i ' 'of! the libeldht'sdairilis of doubtful' merit at the best, but as a lien: it bas no standing.' Thiswasadornestic "essel,and at bome. Therefore, no maritime could arise. Andtben the PednsylvQIlia act of 20th April, 1858, (1 Purd. Dig. 126,)appliesexclusively to V'eiJsals navigating thi3':Allegheny, Monongahela;and Ohio rivers. whereas'ltlie'LittleAcme navigated the Beaver dver only . Moreover, this statute does ,'riot 'embrace st1dh' items as ate here in question. Dalzell v. The Daniel Kaine, 31 Fed. Rep. 746. Let a deoree·be' drawn disrp'iseing the libeltwith'Costs. , .,; ' -: ,.
THE Jos. NIXON.
Court, W. D.
The libelant, late mastel' of a toW-boat, at the end of a trip was hired to take e:folusive oUlltody ,and oare of the bi>8t While she remained moored at Pittsburgh, hl'!r , to put and keepaet in good order,and fit to prooeed on an 8nticipiloted vujage,whioh he did. ,He' ttecessarily remained' on .board the boat day!'nd It was neoessary to lDovethe boat into shore and out therefrom as the riVer rose and feU; and the ohie:t perils to whioh the boat was exposed. and from which she was to be' proteoted by the libelant, were perils of ,the river. that the contract 811dthe services actUally rendered by the libelant Were maritime, and that the lien for'his wages against the' boat, given by the state statute, was enfOrceable 1In rem in admiralty. . .'
VESSEL AT PIER-LIENS
In Admiralty. Goo. W. Acklin t for libelant. Goo. O. Wil80n and David 8. McCann, for respondent.
ACHESON,: ,1. Although the libelant's services On the Nixon were ren'dered at her home port, yet it is very clear that he has a lien against the boat for his wages by virtue of the Pennsylvania act of April 20, 1858, relating to vessels naVigating the rivers Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio. 1 Purd. Dig. 126. The debatable question is whether the libelant's services were performed under a maritime contract, or were of a maritime character, so as'to give him a right to sue in rem in admirl1ltyt agreeably to the practice sanctioned by the cases of Pe:yrfJ'UZ v. Howard t 7 Pet. 324, and The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558. The libelant was called, a "watchman," but he was much more; and indeed his services went far beyond those of an ordinary sbip-keeper. I find the matellial facts of the cMe to be these: The Nixon is a steam tow-boat. In November, 1889, tiponthe termination of a trip, the boat was moored in the Monongahela river, at the public wharf in the port awaiting anticipated employment. The libelant t who is