TlIE WM, GATES.
of the patfmt'is a double-leaved plate, folded upon itself, this precise construction eaJ1not be vital,but a double-leaved plate, securely fastened together, must be the l:Ilill'l6 thing asa folded piece of metal. .. Neither can it be vital thll;t the two leaves of the plate :should both extend rearwardly of the pi\7ot. The defendants do not rest upon these minor details of construction, but their point is that the upper plate is a substantial repetition of th,e spring-plate of No. 191,758, whlch was, confessedly not a tongue-plate. To one en,d of the tongue-plate of 191,758 was at., tached a strip of spring-metal, having one end free, and manifestly detached from the tongue-plate. To thefraeend of this spring plate a tongue was hinged, and was, in this way, indirectly pivoted to the tongue-plate. The tongue bore or acted upon the tongu6-vlate by means of a lever end forming part of the tongue, and in the rear of its pivot. The spring-plate of buckle D is closely attached to the lower plate, and is aJorll'l of the double base plate, which is familiar in arctic buckles; but r do not think it material, if true, that, asaspring-plate, it is like the spring-plate of 191,758. It is, like other double plates of its class, also a tongue-plate. The fact that the upper plate is a spring-plate, and is like an older spring-plate, does not modi(y my opinion that the double plate of buckle D is the same thing as the dQuhle plate of No. 301,. 884, and that its bifurcated extension is substantially the same thing as that shown in the patent, although the two leaves do not extend rearwardly together or in contact with each other. It is true that the spring action of buckle D is effected in a different way from that of the patent, and it is probable that it is e·ffected in the way which had been previously indicated; but it seems to me that the principle of the first claim of No. 301,884 has beennreproduced in buckle D in substantially the same way, and that the way inwhich sprinK action is obtained does not materially affect the questionot infringement of the first claim. The petition is denied.
(DfBtrict Oourt, E. D. Virg-t7&'ta. Jul,. 18, 1881.)
lIABrrnm LIENS-PRIORITIES. Among the holders of maritime liens equal in diRIlity he shall be preferred who llrst institutes prooeedings to enforce his omlIn.
In Admiralty. Libel by Baker and others against the Wm. Gates to enforce certain maritimeliens,'which were all of equal dignity. Sharp w Huyhea, for libelants. . EUis &: Phmn, for petitioners.
HUGHES, J. Clarke's Praxis, which is of highest authority on admiralty law, lays down the followb:ig, principles in title 44 under the head of "The Seizure of Goods by'Different Creditors:"
"If one is indebted to different persons, for the purpose of recovering their debts of that person separate warrants will lie against the goods of the debtor, to procure their arrest., If the goods seized ,are not sufficient for, the payment of all, the creditors, hEl is to be preferred, and will first obtain a judicial decree for the possession 'of. tile goods. who first institutes his suit aforesaid, or had the goods aforesaid seized. The Same order and form is also be observed as to the remaining creditors, if,after the full payment of the first creditor. any goods remain, although not enough to pay all the rest.". .' .
I think the general teacbing of the cases reported is in support of these principles, the exceptional rulings being due to exceptional circumstances presenting themselves 'in .particular cases. I feel bound to decree in accordance with these principles, paying Baker first, Mayer & Co. and then the petitioners pari passu.
BAIN et al.v.
(]Ji8trict Oo.'Urt,E. D., Virginia.
WHARFAGE-RATES.. . .'
The principal wharf·owners of Norfolk and Portsmouth agreed among themselves ona of rates. in wliiClltbe ratll,on the entire'tonnage of large vessels was lIxedat,$l,for 6¥h 100 tons., Prior thereto lihe customary was $1 pel' hundred on the first 8OO'tontland 50 cents per hundred on the remainder, and it appeared that few of those who signed the schedule afterwards charged'more than these rates. Held that, in the absence of an agreement with the vessel, the court would enforce only this rate, though the wharf-owner testified that he was not at liberty to charge less than the schedule rate.
In Admiralty. Libel by Bain & Bros. against the ship Minnie L. Gerow for wharfage. DecrE¥'lJor, Walke & Old, for libelants. Sharp & H.ughes, forrespopq,ent. '
J. The claim here is for wharfage due from the libeled vesThere was no agreement between the agent of the vessel and the tothe,amount to be paid. The charge ,was at the rate $1 per 100 tons per day for. 30 days upon the entire, tonnage of the vessel, which was 1,304 tons; or $391.20. Deposit in the registry of th.e court, Msbeen made on behalf of the vessel at the ratl;lof $1 per hun:fi,rst 300 tons, and,balf.a:dollar perhuridred the rest of the dred on tonnage, for a period of 30 days, or $240.60. l' The only question is whether a dollar or ahlllfdqllar per day per 100 tons on the excess over 300 tons of the vessel's tonnage is the proper