sections 1 and 2 of the act of 1884 as a mere substitute for sections 13 and 14 of the former act, it follows'tlhat the provisions of section 16 of the act of 1853 remain in force. The amount of pilotage allowed under botb'acts is to be computed according to rates "per foot." The practice under both acts has always been'to recognize in the computation fractions of a4'oot;rand to reckon' to a half foot or to the even foot , to whichever the draft in inches, migpt be , In, later: years up.on the deiD'and oHheWHson line the proportions of afoot have been computed for a,ccor4ing, to the e:x;act draft in' feet and inches. "Inthe,present case the bill was rendered to the master and approved, as for 261 feet, the actual draft being 26 feet 6 inches,' The usual practicem ,evidently one that carries oat:equitably the. general intention of thelt'w. I know of nothing that forbids computation for fra.ctions of a footj; and, the usual practice to make a rest at the half foot, and to compute the rates according to the even foot or the half foot, whichever is the actual draft, is recommended by its,' practical convenience. works in tp sliip, or to the adva.nta.ge of the pllotsj and the dIfference between the results afforded by that rule sndan exact proportionate measurement, is so small as to fall within the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Decree for the lihelant for the bill as rendered, with three dollars additional under sections 17 and 21 of the act' of 1858, with interest and costs. '
THE ERASTINA. THE ELM PARX.
ELM PARK AND THE, ERASTINA..
, (DLstrict Court, So D. New York. Aprij S, 1892.)
1. MARITIMB LtIlNs-ToWAGB. Towage selrvices are presumptively a lien on the vesseL n fs for the claimant to prove a personal credit only, or to show circumstances that negative a credit to the vesseL .
On the evidence fn thfa case, held, that the towage aervices were rendered on the oredit of the vesseL
In Admiralty. Libel for towage. Hyland k ZabriskU, for libelant. Oarpenter &- Mosher and .A.· .A.. Wray, for claimant.
BROWN, District Judge. The only point litigated is wbether the towage service was a lien upon the boats. The service sued for was render$d ripon several trips during the month of July, 1891. Similar services had been rendered prior to July under a contract with one
Symonds, :who was not the owner of theboatsj but Symonds paid the libelant ill,full up to the 1st day of July. In the month, of June the owner of the scows by a written contract with Symonds agreed to take the, business for.which the scows were engaged, the pll/oCJl ,of and to assume his obligations. The claimant desired the libelant to accept him in place of Symonds as respects the pay for towages, which the libelant, not then knowing that the claimant was the owner of the scows, refused to do, except upon Mr. Symonds' security. On the 11th the. was the owner of the scows, of July, being and being told by the claimant that the scows should stand as security for his towage,thelibelant (lgreed to deal with the claimant on the same terms as those on which he had previously dealt with Symonds, dating as from Jbe >lstdayof July, and therefore inclt!,ding'the intermediate , towages; but this agreement was on condition that the claimant should pay the:'1'ibelant'sbill against Symonds up to July Ist,for which the claimant then held a check from Symonds for the'libelant's benefit, to agreed; and at the1same time the libelant released Symonds from his contract and from his personal liability for the previous towageS. The ,clainial).t, however, instead o( delivering to the libelant the check given him for the libelant's benefit, used it for his ,own benefit; and it. was cot until long that the libelant received from Symonds the amount due to him for towages up to the 1st .of July., For this reason the written contract between the libelant and claimant, though drawn up, was never executed and delivered; but under the verhal arrangement above recited, the towages were continued upon the claimant's orders. Nothing has been paid on account, and this libel was filed for the towages after the 1st day of July· . Towage services are presumptively a liim upon the vessel. It is for the claimant to prove a personal credit only, or to show circumstances that negative a credit of the veesel. The evidence, however, leaves no doubt that the towages from and after July 11th were on the express credit of the scows. ,For such services as had been previously rendered between that date and the 1st of July, the claimant had given to the libelant his individual orders for the towage. The claimant was also not oniy the owner of the scows,. but he was in fact the principal in the .busines,s for which the scows were used, since he had assumed Symonds' place under the. contract previously executed with him. In addition to that, the evidence ahows that on the 11th of July the claimant agreed tba.t,thescows should be security to the libelant for his towages between that date and the 1st of J,uly, as well as for future towage; and on the faith of this agreement the libelant released Symonds from liability for the prior towages since July 1st. These circumstances are abundant grounds for a lien upon the scows for the services previously rendered betwl;lElll·July 1st and 11th, whether there was already a lien therefor or not. The failure to execute and deliver the written contract drawn up between the libelant and the claimant, in consequence of the latter's wrong conduct, does: not affect the libelant's claim or lien for what was actually done byhirn ,on the faith of the verbal agreement.
i The disputed item for demurrage in June can no longer he litigated, as it was settled by Symonds; the item for demtirrage in July is not established. Decree for the libeiant for the atnount claimed, with interest and <losts.
Court, D. Massachusetts. April 12. 1892.)
In the case of a fishing vessel run under an agreement by which the cost of repairs is deducted from tb,eproceeds of the entire catch before division, a season's cruising is to be counted as a single voyage, and the earnings for the whole sea· son's fishing are, equally with the vessel, liable for the cost of repairs contracted on the vessel's account. Hence, when such vessel was wrecked, and her owners, on sUit.by a material-man, claimed to limit their liability to the value of the wreck. heUl, that their liability was measured by the season's earnings added to the value of the wreck., SAME-PART OWNERS-"PRIVITY OR JUNE 26,'1884. Where repairs were ordered by a ship-master, who was also one of three equal part owners of a vessel, without the privity or knowledge of the other owners, held, that the master was liable for the whole debt, and the other two owners weIle each liable for one-third of it, under Act June 26, 1884, § 18.
LIMITATION OP,LIABILITY--FJSHING VEssm.-"FREIGBT PENDIN,G"-SBASON'S CATClL
In Admiralty. Libel to recover the value of repairs furnished to respondents' vessel. Carver & Blodgett, for libelant. Owen A. Galvin, for respondents. District Judge. This case is a libel in personam by a mateto recover $165.35 for repairs furnished to the fishing schooner William Emerson, owned.in equal shares by the three respondents, Emerson, Whalen, and Rhoderick. The repairs were furnished in the months.of Januarx and February, 1890, at Provincetown, on the credit of the vessel, to, tit hel' for shOre, fishing during the coming season, and were necessary. After being fitted out, the vessel cruised during the ,entire seasoll, maJting, numerous trips, and selling her fares in the Boston market. The proreeds were divided between the owners and shares,men according to what is known as the "Provincetown lay," by which the costs of repairs is included in the great generals, and deducted from the entire catch in the first instance, before division. At the close of the seasoa the vessel was sent to Provincetown, to be laid up for the winter, her value then being $5,000. Instead of laying her up, as directed by Emerson, who was the managing owner, the respondent Rhoderick took her out on a fishing trip, and while out she was wrl;lcked on Cape Cod. The wreck was sold for $303.50. Other debts to a considerable RUlount are also outstanding ,against the vessel. The act of June 26, 1884, (23 St; p. 57,) provides "that the individualliabilities of a ship-owner shall be limited to the proportion of any and all debts and liabilities that his individual share of the vessel bears