J'2DERAL aillttoRTEk, vot
eyerjr day ;'pro'bab11 AttJf!i.meht'·as being tlonsidered,but the fresh bread:: was so much: tbthesea-bis· :euitsthelatter were rejected,'Md the t thobght that they were not. sup'plledl 'with of'tnEl'ifornler." :With regard to,fre$hand ,salt 1Jieef,"tne ServiOO1tlldstippJy were The su pply of dishes for both food'JW"aB insufficient; " Theresetvesupply of water could only" be 'obtained :1>ystlcking in an iron pipe from a barrel on deck. Thaisteward and baker and c()ok,who had immediate contrOl of the furnishing, distributing) 'and cooking of the provisions served'tottlE! emigrant" r>Msengers, seemed to havea11 interest in creating and supplying a demal1d for extrasanddlHicacies, and even necessaries, amollJ:( the said passengets. i" 4. The watet-closet . fur the female passengers \was' not decently arranged and, indosedtand: during the voy agewas genera,lly in a disgustinglyfilthy condition; l i e , ' , ·., : . ,,' . ,It follows that the ca,nt1l>t recover foi-lind on account of being put upon shortl1-11owal'1oo; under tMpassengeraet of 1882;'I!:0r for failure on the part of the:masterimd officer to furnieh provisionsJequivalent in value to one and one-half naVy rations of thaUnitedStates under the same statute; but that they may recoVer fori I breach Of contract in not furnishing llnd quality of provisions actually contracted to be furnished; and the female libelants may recover for breach of contract in 'regard to ':Wappears that for the insufficient Water-closets the ship hasloeen COIlvicted in a !luit,1)roughtbythe United States under'thepassenger:act oH882, andhas'been fined the stipulated penalty, ($250,) and this fact should be oOllsideredin determining the damages to be allowed here. On the whole, $50 for each libelant seems to be a proper allowance for damages on the ,breadh:of contract all and $50 should be allowed to each fenlMce llbelant for breach as to water.closets. A decree will therefore be entered tgiving each male libelant $50 damages, and each fefilale libelant (&100. The decree will carry costs of both courts. . ,
(Oircuit Oautt, E.
D.'z;ouWana. ,Match th;,'1891.) -I '.1: .
': Defendant railroad 90mpany also owned a line ofsteatD-boa'ta rttnnhl! ill ttle '" Ktllaissippi river, and. 1101(\ tickets betWe«ln ,lltations, and eitb.er on tile : '. railroad or steam-boatll,aild entitllng to be carried'either to the station named or to the one nearest· on the opposite p13intiff such a ticket, defendant, reta!iationfor l"l:lf\Wal to .givetl:ie boatdiqel:iia entire freigbt, refused to IB:nd l:irin at tl:ie lant1ing opposite the atation named in the ticket,
CONTBidT. " "
saying they;had landing. Ueld. a breach o!the.con,tract embodIed in the ticket, for which plaintifl was entitled to at le1l8t nomi/lal damages. The damages beIng purely nominal, a, recovery of t60 was propel'.
In Admiralty. " ' Wm., (hant and J. P. 1!orn,or, for libelants. W. W.1I.mJ?e; for c1aim$nt. ' P ' The qllestion in tpese cases is whether libelants had allch, a, .contract passage as authorized them to travel upon the the Fort Leon landing, in the parish of steamerA.lvin, and be Railroad Plaquemines" The claimant, the ,New, Orleans & pany, is the, ,owner ofa ()f railroad ,running from, the city of New Orleans qOWll tpe coast of river, op the, left bankQf tbe same"and is ,also the of line of steamers plying on the lower in,connectio,n and conjunction with this railroad. The AIvinjs one of the steamers of the river line. The railroad company, for the purpQse of and accommodating its patrons, issued whatis calWI"a train and,\3,team-hoat ticket"from andjo vario,us points lines. ,Pri..Qteq· on the ticket is on the, Aver, reachedhy the the follmvjllg; , "This is good betw'tlen' stations or landings as indicatf'd by punchmarks ,eith.er,on the orstel\m-b<»\ts, ' If used on the railroad by passengerscom.lng.,fromor t() points on the it is good to the and the nearestone at which ,the company station tise to stOp its trains; hut' 'in no case does it include ferriage across the river." '" i' i , ' The the ticketcontrliins list of the stations on the railrOIl-,d and)andipgs on t;he in order, commencing at New Orlel,lnsj the I!\tations and)andings on the left hank of the river being in opposite the corresponding landings as to distaDces(l6m New Orleans on the right })ank of the river, e.g.:
T1;le evlden,ce, shows that when the ticket is sold on the ,railroad the stations puncl,uld are the stations at, which, the ticket is sold and the staUon at the ,place of 4estination, anli sold on the steam-boats the plJ;ncbed are the landing where it is. sold and landing at the either place o( destination, and, that these tickets are used in line,or upon the railroad as the holdeJ:! :rpay upon the elect. If return by railroad, he is carried to the staifhis ticket is, one sold and p),lnched' on :the rfliltion road, or, ,W· ntilroadsta,tion' opposite.. onepm;whed, if his ticket is one BOld and punched on the steam-bo,atline. On·tp6otller band, if tile return he is carri¢tothelsn,ding if, ticket is one sold and, pumciled, on .
., . . '....."
I'lllDERAr. REPoRTER', vo};
bqatJi;qe,dr,tq landing'on eit4er hank ofthl} liver, r"(holder's option,' if his ticket is one sold and punched on therailros.d line, Among'other 'stations and railroad landings named upon the reverse side of the ticket are the station Rnd landing of English Turn on the left of the river, and imrnediatelyop.posite, in th,e same and with. the same number, is Fort Leon, a landing on the of the river. The libelants each held one of these tickets, purchase'd 'on the railroad, and punched at English Turn, a station on the leftJ;>ank.of the river, Its the place o(Btarting and returnitigj Fort Leon being, as we have seen, the landing directly opposite in the column on the and'a landing opposite English Turn on the ,right bank of the river. The evidence further shows 'that the general understanding of the traveling public and the custom of the carrier has been to land 'passengers under the said tickets at the place on either bank of the river as theyrnay elect, opposite the station or landing punched, if the return trip istllade' by the steam-boat. There issorne evidence in the record tending .to show that at the time these tickets were purchased the agent of the claimant who made the sale so stated to the libelants. Whether .this be true or not, 1 think it isimmaterial,becal1se it seems from the 'whole purport of the evidence with regard. to the issuance of these round-trip tickets that such was the general rule and custom of the carrier. In my opinion, under the circumstanoes as above narrated, there was a contract with the carrierto return the libelants, if they elected to travel by the steam-boat line, to the Fort .Leon landing on the westban,k of the river.. Conceding the contract, there is no in these cases' bt;1twhat the same was violated by the carrierj nor is there any question that in the yiolllr tion the claimapt's agents were actuated solely by thEfir failure to control the principal libelant in the shipmeiit of his plantation freight by their line. The evidence in the case shows Clearly that he had refused to give the steam-boat line his entire freight, and, as.a retaliation 'for nis refusal, that the steam-boat line had put him 'toyarious inconvenienCEis in the shipment of his freight, principally in requiring the same to be prepaid, and afterwards had notified him that they would no longer stop at his landing;, put would abandon it. Perhaps they had a right, for the reasons given, to abanpon the Fort Leon landing.' It may be true, and probably is, that a steam-boat is not required to stop at every place along the river where requested, nor is it requiredtcJmaintaina landing whether it pays or does not pay There is proM to show 'that they had notified the plaintiff that they had abahdoned his landing, and would no longer land their steam-boat there. But aU this goes for nothing if, under the contract made in this case, the Carrier had contracted to deliver him at that landing. If the claimant"had desired to entirely abandon the Fort Leon landing, it should have seen to it that as a land::' ing it should be stricken from its list as printed on the tickets, and that its agents should not sell tickets calling, under the general arrangement . . referred to above, for such landing; On the question of damages, it is considered that'ln the amounts lowed in the district in each case-they are 'practically nom-
inal, leaving nothing to the libelants beyond the vindication of the law after the expenses of the litigation other than taxable costs are paid. This is substantially right, for the evidence shows that the main damages actually suffered wer& voluntarily incurred by libelants, and did DOt necessarily follow from the blleach of contract; in short, that libelants rather insisted on enhancing damages, Let decrees'go for the libelants in the same terms and for the same amounts as in the decrees given by the district court.
THE SHAWNEE. McKENNA et ala v. THE SHAW.NEE.
(D18trict Oourt, Iil. D. Wisconsin. April 13, 1891.)
LibelaJ1ts were seamen on the schooner S., which while at !!-nchor during a heavy head-Wind had her windlass carried away. The crew then refused to goet the vessel'under way, demanding that the vessel be taken to the nearest port for repairs, or, bL lieu thereof, that they be paid, $50 each adcilitional wages. Her ses-going quallties had not been seriously impaired. But one of her two large anchors was lost. and the windlass, though a convenience, was not essential to her safety. After urging the men to do their duty without .success, moved by the lateness of tbe season, and. the diffi.culty of another crew in that locality; ,he made the promise, and entered it on the shipping articles. 'Upon arrival in port, their wages asoriginally,epntracted fol' wElre,offered to them, but were ref1j.sed, and a libel brought.to recover them with the additional compensation. Beld, that tjlere was no such unseaworthi.n.ess as to absolve li.belants from the Oh.ligationtoserv.e, and their under the circumstances, amounted to:inutiny, for which all wages must be decreeQ. to be f()rfeited. ' ' ,.
In Admiralty. Libel for wages. J .. W. Wegner andM. O.Krause, for libelants. George O. Markham, for respondeI,lt. , JENKINS, J; The libelants at the port of Detroit on the 13th day of November, 1890, shipped as seamen on board the schooner Shawnee on a voyage to Huron, Ohio, for cargo, and thence to the port of Milwaukee, at the stated wages of$2.50 per day and Jare hoine. On receiving cargo,the'Shawnee proceeded on her voyage in tow of the steamer Spinner, with the Godfrey in ·tow astern of the Shawnee. The vessels arrived off Mackinac on the22d of November, and on account of a heavy head-wind came to anchor. The Shawnee cast her large anchor and took in her tow-line from. the Spinner, the' Godfrey still hanging on to the Shawnee. The windlass of the Shawnee proved insufficient to hold the two the head-wind, and was carried away, the Godfrey then coming to anchor. In the forenoon of the next day the master of the Shawnee went ashore, wired the owners of the accident, and reeeivedinstructions to proceed. Returning on board,the masterdiHcted the mate to call the men from ,the forecastle to get the vessel under way. Upon delivery of the order the men stated t1\at tbeV;'W0l11.l v,45F.no.11-49