THE O. E. CONRAD.
TinnRHoDA A:ND· CHARLIE.
FOSTElR v. THE O.E. OONRAD and mE HHODA AND .OHARLIE.I (DIstrict Court, S. D. York. May 81, 1898.)
\1ARITnJJll LIENS-UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OF BOAT-BREACH OF CONTRACT BY WRONGDOER-LIABILI'l'Y OF BOAT. ·
Where' one obtained l)(lssession of boats without the owner's consent or authority, and aftel'Wards, in his own name, entered into contracts of towage in regard to such boats whIch contracts he subsequently violated, hfJd, that mere possees'lon, wIthout right, is not even apparent legal authority, and one who deals with the wrongdoer in possession does so at his peril, and no lien against the boats was created by such breach of contract.
In Admiralty. Libel by PeU W. Foster against the O. E. Gonrad 'and the Rhoda qha,rlie to enforce lien for breach of contract. Libel dismissed. Lamb, Osborne & PettYifor libelant. Hylanll & Zabriskie,for claimants.
BROWN, District Judge. In this. case, which in llome respects resembles that of Foster v. The Rosenthal, 57 Fed. Rep. 254, it appears thl:l.t Hazard, the master, under a contract for- the purchase of the bQats, had obtained possession of them from the owner without his consent or authority, and then made in his own name the contract to carry the libelant's goods for the breach of which the libel is filed. I doubt whether proceeding to Rochester with the intention of taking the libelant's salt, and on arrival there going elsewhere for a different cargo, would constitute such an entry on the performan,ce of the contract, as would bring case·· within the rule of a'partial execution of the charter, sufficient to sustain a libel in rem for the breach of the contract. Aside from that, however, the. uJ:lcontradicted evidence shows that Hazard. had not the least auth()rity to make any charter, or contract binding on the boats; that possession of them had never been delivered to him by the owner, nor any consent given that he should navigate them or make any contract of carriage. He had no authority real, implied, or apparent; for mere possession without right or the consent of the owner, is not even apparent legal authority. The libelant in dealing with him, dealt, therefore, at his peril. It follows that the libel must be dismissed; but as the claimant, the true owner, has Qbtained actualpossession of the boats by meanlil of these very libels, :notpreviously knowing where the boats were, the libel without costs. may
'Reported by E. G. Benedict, Esq., ot the New York bar.
BLAIR t1. HARRISON.
at v. HARtRISON et aL 1
(Olrcolt Oourt of Appeals, Seventh 0lrcu1t. June 10. 1893.)
A'rl'ORNlCY AND CLIENT-FEES-LIEN ON JUDGMENT.
Where the amount due on a judgment recovered for the purchase prlee of property sold by plaintiff to defendant is paid Into a court of eqillty for distribution, plaintiff's attorneys are entitled to receive therefrom the money due them for meritorious services rendered to plaintiff In other suits growing out of such purchase, where such services were rendered with the expectation that they would be paid for out of the proceeds ot such judgment. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, afllrmed.
Proof that two men owned a ranch and herd of eattle jointly, that they managed the ranch together, rendered accounts in their joint names, and referred to themselves as a rompany, is sufficient to show that they were copartners, although they had no articles or agreement of copartnership. til Fed. Rep. 693, affirmed.
SAME-SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PARTNERS-RIGHTS OIl' CREDITORS.
A settlement betweencoparmers which determines their respective Interests In a certain partnership fund Is conclusive as to the rights "Of their Individual creditors to that fund. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, afllrmed.
SAMJIl-V ACATmG SETTLEMENT-EVIDENCE.
A settlement between copartners, who are both capaJble men, of a business amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and involvIng many items of account depending upon the memories of the copartners, should not be opened at the Instigation of their creditors, after the death of one of the ropartners, even though there Is a strong prima. facie showing of mistake In the settlement. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, affirmed. One of two copartners cannot pledge the partnership property to secnre his private debt, except to the extent of his Interest therein. 51 Fed. Rep. 693, affirmed.
SAME-RtGHT OIl' PARTNER TO PLEDGE
After the announcement of the final decision of the chancellor upon the merits of a case, It Is proper to refuse to permit the pleadings to be amended, so as to meet objections which were raised at the hearing, two months before the decision was rendered, espec1ally where such amendment would not affect the grounds on which the decision is baselL 51 Fed. Rep. 693, afllrmed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Nortn4 ern District of lllinois. In Equity. Bill in the nature of a suit of interpleader brought by John Claflin and others, composing the flrm of H. B. Claflin & Co., against Jessie I. Bennett, John A. Blair, Samuel J. Garvin, John C. Harrison, Robert L. Dunman. and others. A decree was rendered . in favor of Harrison and Dunman. An appeal was taken by Blair and Garvin. Affirmed For opinion of the lower court in this case, see Claflin v. Bennett, 51 Fed. Rep. 693. A. B. Wilson, E. F. Thompson, and O. B. McCoy, (Gardiner Lathrop and John N. Jewett, on the brief,) for appellants. Charles M. Osborn, (13.· A. Lynde and S. B. Ladd, 011 the brief,) fo!' appellees.