of settlementaqopted by them was, in, their opinion, just and faiJ:t(),the men; and derive much, support from the fact tbllt tbe crews of a the whalers have reshipped for the next season on an agreed bastElJ of of $1.25 per lb. for bone if the catch amounts to 200 over, and $1.50 if the catch is leRS than 2QO whales. Twenty is to "be allowed for oil, without reference to catch. 'l'he number of whales taken during the last season was 345. The men have been settled with on the same basis as that mutually agreed for next year, if the catch is over 200 whales. I find no reason the settlement mad,c J Oll the ground that the men have not fairly dealt by. . .
THE SARAH CULLEN. KNICKERBOCKER S'.l."EAM: TOWAGE CO. ". THE SARAH CuLLEN.
(tXrcuit Oourt of Appeals, Second Oircuit. November 7,ll:l9L)
M.uuTntB LIlI:N-ToWAGB-CttlilDIT OJ' TmRD hRSON.
·Libelant rendered towage service to a vessel without express employment by her master, or agreem6nt to pay. Libelant was afterwards informed that the R. Ice Company was to p.ay for the towage. and thereafter, for the above and subsequent towage services, rendered, bUls to such ice company, which were paid in part. No notice was given to the vessel owner that the ship was expected to pay for the towage until the failure of the.ice company. six months after the first voyage. Held. that the service was Dot rendered on the credit of the vessel, but. on the oredit of the oharterer. 45 Fed. Rep. 511, amrmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern of New York. In Admiralty. Libel for towage by the Knickerbocker Steam Towage Company against the schooner Sarah Cullen. A decree dismissing the libel was affirmed by the circuit court, and libelant appeals. Affirmed. It appE'.ared Jhat the schooner was at the time under charter to the Knickerbockel' Ice Company, which had agreed to pay for all towages in the Kennebec river. Previous to the of the towage sued for, the libelant had rendered other towage services to the schooner, the bills for which had been paid by the Ridgewood Ice Company. No notice was given the master or owners of the vessel that they were expected to pay these towage bills. until after the failure of the Ridgewood Ice Company, and the claimants contended that the services were not ren. dered on the credit of the vessel, but at the request and on the credit of ice company. The district court found that the services were not rendered on the credit of the vessel, and dismissed the libel, (45 Fed. Rep. 511;) and. on appeal, a pro forma affirmance was rendered by the circuit court, whence libelant appealed to this court. Wing, Shoudy &: Putnam, for appellant.
THE OOE F.
Owen, Gray &: Sturges, for appellee. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. We are satisfied that tbe towage service, for tbe recov-· eryof which this libel is filed, was not rendered on the credit of the schooner or ber owners, but both her master and the libelant understood that the towage was to be collected of the Ridgewood Ice Company, the charterer of the vessel. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs of this court, and the cause remanded to that court, with directions to render a decree accordingly.
THE COE F. YOUNG. IRoNS et at V;·'rHE CoE F. YOUNG.'
(emmet Court 0/ Appeals, Second Cf!rcUtt. November 1" 1891.)
L CoLLIIlION-BTBAM AND BAn.-:-LOOl!:OUT. Assillng vessel is entitled to assume that a steam-vessel. approaching her, is 1Jeo ingna.vigated with a propllr lookout, and with reasonable attention to the obUg&ti(lnB laid'upon her.
SAM_DUTY 011' BAIL-VBBBEIr-BUTING OUT TACK.
A salling vessel, beating in the vioinity of a steam-vessel, is not obliged to run out her tacks, provided her going about is not caloulated to mislead or embarrass the steam-vessel
BAMB-STATBMENT 011' CASB.
A tug was going up about the middle of the North river on a olear morning, and was grooually overtaking a sloop, whioh was beating up the stream. The tug had no lookout, other than her master at the wheel. The sloop went from one taok to another! when about 1,000 feet from shQre, a.nd the tug soon a.fter struok a.nd sank her. Tne tug ola.imed tha.t the ohange of course was the oause of the collision. The court found that the tug had ample time to have avoided tbe sloop after her going abo)J.t, and accordingly held. that the tug was solely in fault for keeping a defective lookout.
Appeal·from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. In Admiralty. Libel the steam-tug Coe F. Young for damage by a collision with sloop Mary; by the owners of the vessel, for its loss; the master, for personal injuries; and a deck-hand, for the loss of personal A decree for libelants was affirmed by the circuit -cOurt, and respondent appeals. Affirmed. On the morning of April 19, 1890, the steam-tug Coe F. Young left the foot of Fulton street, New York, bound for Yonkers. The morning was clear, the -tug had no tow, and went out about one-third of the distance across the river, and then took a straight up-river cOurse, going at full speed. She had no stationed lookout forward, other than her master in the pilot-house. When somewhere in the
Reported b1' Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of the New York bar.