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
to the whole; and theaggtegate liabilities of all the owners of a vessel on accou.nt of the same shall not exceed the value of such vessels and freigM pending." By the act of June 18, 1886, § 4, (24 St. p. 80,) this section, and also sections 4282-4288 of the Revised Statutes, which contain other provisions for limiting the liabilities of ship-owners, are extended to all sea-going vessels, and this includes fishing vessels. The respondents Emerson and Whalen now offer to pay into court the sum of $303.50, received from the sale of the wreck, and claim that upon such payment they should,j:>e exempted from further liahility for all the debts of the vessel. But it is clear that this claim cannot be maintained. Their offer makes no allowance for the fares of fish caught and sold during the season. By the terms of the fishing contract, the cost of repairs should have been deducted from the proceeds of the fish caught and sold, and if this was not done, it was through no fault of the libelant. The season's cruising is to be counted as a single voyage, and the ings during the whole season's fishing are, equally with the vessel, liable for debts contracted on the vessel's account. The amount of the earn. ings does not appear, and they must be presumed to exceed the debts. As thereis no offer to pay the earnings into court, or to apply them to the payplent of the debts, there is no exemption from liability from the debts under the statutes referred to. rt appears that the repairs were furnished upon the order of Rhoderick alone,whc;> was also the master, without the privity or knowledge of the other and not under any contract with them, except so far as the mllster had implied authority to bind them as part owners for neeessari,es. As the liability of Emerson and Whalen for the repairs arises solely from their ownership of two-thirds interest in the vessel, and not on account of their personal intervention, the liability of each is limited toone-third of the debt, by section 18 of the act of 1884. The Amos D. 35 Fed. Rep. 665; McPhail v. Williams, 41 Fed. Rep. 61. The libelant is entitled to a decree for the whole debt against Rhoderick. and 101' one-third of the debt against Emerson and Whalen, respectively, with costs; and it is so ordered.
THE STEAM: TUG LUCKENBACH. LEWIS LUCKENBACH et al. v. THE GEORGIA and Claimants.
(01trcuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Oircuit. April 12, 1892.)
CoLI.ISION-'-TuG AND STEAMER-RuLE
19. A tug rounding Town point. in Norfolk harbor, nnder considerable speed, Buddenly came in sight of a steamer just under way leaving her wharf, and heading out into the harbor towards Portsmouth. The steamer blew one whistle and kept her course. The tug replied with two whistles, and, putting her helm to starboard, to cross the steamer's bow. The steamer promptly reversed. but cotlld not' avoid a collision. Held, that the tug, haVing the steamer on her starboard side, was governed by rule 19, (Rev. St. § 4233,) and bound to keep out of the way. HeW,