THE .STBoUd-SHIP MISSISSIPPI.
the same rate of 25 ·cents. The crews of aU other eastellll vessels were paid ,at the same rate, which was; a'Bootween owners and crew, a fair. division the catch. .: The.libellants, having lost the usual datch in. Maine, while. their expenses were not diminished, w.ade a very poor summer's work, became much dissatisfied, refused .to settIeat the rate which was offered by the owners, and brought this libel, insisting' upon their right to 21 cents per barrel. The;whole number of barrels which were oaught w8is·12;,-, 285; J.70 barrels were sold ·for bait. The libellants have not beenpaid in full, although the owners have been ready and willing to settle for 12t cents per barrel. It is understood that ,the fish sold for bait are settled for at a special rate at. 40 cents per barrel; that is to S&y, if a barrel sold £or80 cents; it is called two barrels, and if sold for 60 .cerits it is called 1t barrels. I am not advised. that object10n is made by the libellants to this method of accounting for the bait money. From the findings already made in regard to the custom of the business in the eastern fleet,it appears that. the owners .of the vessel pursued the generally-accepted understanding in regard to payment of the eastern crews, lirid which resulted in this case in a proper rate of . As an accounting is still to be had, in order to ascertain how mnch is due to each person, let there be a reference to a. commissioner, in case of a disagreement between the parties, to ascertain the amount due to each libellant upon the rwes heretofore stated.
(District Oourt, D. Massachusetts. February 11, 1881.)
1;J8E OF DRY DOCK-MARITIME .CON'l'!t4CT- WHARFAGE-MARnrnta
GEN. ST. c. 151, § 1.
.NELsoN,D. J. Libel by the Simpson Patent Dry iDook: Company, Ii Massachnsettscorporation, to enforce against the in this port, a steam-ship Mississippi, owned and lien for the use of a dry <lock in Boston. The libel alleges
that in the year 1879 the steam-ship Mississippi,then lying in the port of Boston, stood in need of certain supplies, disbursements, and services to render her seaworthy, and to enable her to proceed on her intended voyage; that the libel· lants,. at the :request of the master or agents of the steam-ship, furnished a berth in their dry-dock yard for the steam-ship to lie in while undergoing said repairs, the wharfage or dockage whereof amounts to $519; that said berth or wharfage or dockage was necessary for said steam-ship, and was furnishedupon the credit of the vessel. It appeared that after leaving the dry dock the steam-ship made a voyage to the Western islands and. Madeira and return, and that no statement of the libellants' claim was ever filed in the city clerk's office. Upon these facts the court decided as follows: 1. The contract for the use of the dry dock was a maritime contract,and as sllch is cognizable in the admiralty. 2. Theaccomodation furnished was not wharfage. 3. For such service furnished at her home port no lien attached to the vessel under the general maritime law. 4. For such service a lien is given by the Mass. Gen. St. c. 151, § 1, which enacts that "when, by virtue of a contract, expressed or implied, with the owners of a ship or vessel, or with the agents, contractors, or subcontractors of such owners, or any of them, or with any person having been employed to · · · repair - · · auch ship or vessel, or to assist them, money is due to any person for labor performed, materi· als used, or labor or materials furnished in the · · .. repairs of · <It <It or for provisions, stores, or other articles furnished for or on account of such ship or vessel in this state, such person shall have a lien upon the ship or vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to secure the payment of such deht." This lien may be enforced in the admiralty. 5. The lien given by the statute was lost by the failure of the libellants to comply with the second section of the act, which provides that the lien shall be disilolved unless a sworn statement of the claim is filed with the clerk of the city or town within fonr days from the time the ship 01 vessel departs from the port. Libel dismissed. .
BANK OJ' BB1'l'ISH
AIOIIRIOA t1. ](ILLlIB.
BAMK OJ' BRITISH NORTH AMERICA t1. MILLER (Circuit Court, D. OngOA. April 6,1881.)
L .A.PPuRTENANClIl;:' A water right, grBll,ted in gross, does not become techntea]]y app'llt" tenant to land and a mill upon and for which it is subsequently use(\ by the grantee thereof; but wheI:e such water-power is taken jUld applied to run a mill belonging' to the owner of the power, and 'afterward:J, while the water-power is so being used, the owner conveys the premises by metes and bounds without mentioning the water right, the right may pass therewith, as' parcel thereof, if such appears to have been the intention of the patties. .
WATER-POWER NOT APPURTENANT,
Wmm PASSES WlTJI LAND. In 1864 a water right was'granted by the owner of the basin at Oregon City, in gross; and in 1866 the same was taken and applied to the use of a paper mill and machine shop on block 2, in said tqwn; and in 1867, the same being the property of the owners of the waterpower, tbey converted it into a.1Iour mill and applied such water,power to the use thereof, continuously and exclusively, untlll878, when the owner of the mill and power conveyed the mill, describing the property by metes and bounds only. and without any express mention of said water right, to secure a loan of $20,000, payable in two years, with interest at the ].'8te of 1 per cent. per month; the said properly, including said water right. being then worth not to exceed t26,OOO, of which sum the water right was worth one-third. Held, that, upon the facts and circumstances of the case, it satisfactorily appeared that it was the intention of the parties that the water right should pass with the land and mill; and, being then used in connection therewith, it did so pass as parcel thereof.
In Equity. Suit to enforce the lien of a mortgage. Ellis G. Hughes, for plaintiff. W. Carey Johnson and William Strong, for defendant Apperson. DEADY, D. J. On April 18, 1878, James D. Miller and wife conveyed the following-described property to John T. Apperson, as the executor of the will of George La Rocque, to secure the payment of the promissory note of said Miller, of the same date, for the sum of $20,000, with interest at 1 per centum per month, payable to said Apperson, or order, on or before two years after date, to wit: 'lots 5 and 6, in block 2, in Oregon City, Oregon; and also a portion of lois v.6,no.6-35