.is clear, that what a man has he may assign, e:¥:cepting for wrongs of a personal nature, such as slander an4 assault. The convincing reason is that given by Judge Ware in the case cited, that "the debtor cannot be injured by the assignment, while the creditor would lose part of the benefit of his security if he cannot assign." In this state (Mississippi) it is settled law that the lien of a mechanic, material man, or laborer may be assigned.· In the case of Kerr v. Moore, 54 Miss. 288, the court say:
"The decided weight of authority and reasoning, according to our view, is in favor of the assignability of the lien of the mechanic, and the right of the assignee to assert his claim and enforce the lien in the same manner and to the same extent that the mechanic could. We hold that the Hen of 11. laborer for wages is assignable, and that tbe assignee can enforce it, just as the laborer could. This view better accords with the general policy of our law, and the spirit and purpose of the act which gives the laborer a lien, thauthe contrary view."
In the last edition of Jones, Liens, § 1788, the law is thus stated: .
"The assignment of a debt secured by a maritime lien carries with it the lien security, where the parties so intended, and if the assignment be absolute the assignee should proceed in the admiralty in his own name;" citing numerous cases.
Judge Blodgett, in the case of The American Eagle, 19 Fed. 879, says:
"There is no doubt some seeming authority in support of the exception, but I think the more reliable and better-considered cases are in favor of supporting the lien in behalf of the assignee, or giving him all the S (:urity which the '>riginal creditor had."
The debtor cannot, certainly, be injured by an assignment. The creditor might lose, if he cannot assign. As far as I have been able to ascertain, I think it has been accepted doctrine in this district that maritime lien claims were -assignable. Let a decree be entered in accord with the views herein expressed.
THE JOURNEYMAN. SHARP
v. THE JOURNEYMAN.
(DistrIct Court, N. D. New York. March 8, 1894.)
BEAMEN-WAGES-LIBEL AGAINST VESSEL-BET-OFF.
Upon proceedIngs in rem against a barge for wages due a mariner, the claimant cannot set off a debt due by the libelant to a third person, who has assigned such debt to the master personally.
In Admiralty. Libel by John Sharp against the Journeyman for wages. Decree for libelant. Bovingdon & Brown, for libelant. Cook & Fitzgerald, for claimant. COXE, DistJ;i<:t Judge. John Sharp, the libelant, during the summer of 1893, at Oleveland, Ohio, shipped as mate upon the barge Journeyman and worked in that capacity for 19! days. He has not been paid, and the question is what shall be his per diem compensa-
'," No written contract was signed and he seeks roreco-ver the 'higli'esll 'wages paid at Cleveland for a similar voyage within the thl:eel mOIl;ths prior toMs shipping, pursuant to section 4521 of the Re'\7iil'le61Statutes of the United States. The libelant insists that the blghest price paiddl1rlng this period was $1.50 per day, the daiItiantthat it was but $1 per day... I am inclined to think that the weight of evidenee shows that $4:0 per month was the highest price paid at Cleveland for similar voyages, in barges of the size and carrying capacity 'Of the Journeyman, during the months of .'May;.fune, and July, 1893. This would make the sum due the 'libelant for wages $26. He also ,seeks to recover $9.62, wbich he alleges the master agreed to pay for extra labor. This agreement is positively denied by the master. The burden is upon the libel· ant to satisfy the court by a preponderance of evidence that this inherently improbable agreement was entered into. He has not done so. It is unnecessary, therefore, to decide whether such an agreement could ,lawfull;r be entered into between master and mate. 2 Pars., Shipp. & Adm.' 42, 43. The libelant also alleges that he paid $7.35 for the benefit of the barge, and this claim appears to be undisputed. There is therefore due him $33.35, less $5 paid him oil account, or $28.35 in all. The evidence regarding the al· leged tender need not be considered, for even though the court should find upon this issue with claimant it would not aid him, fo,rthe·,reason that it is clear that if made at all the tender was inadequate in amount and insufficient in law. Boulton v. Moore, The Cornelia Amsden, 5 Ben. 315, Fed. Cas. No. 3,234; SpvE1reig:n, Lush. 85. Th,e, seeks :!i9rec0ver $25 as a counterclaim. It is alt];lat Ella Penny, the cook on the barge, lent the libelant that . sum and assIgned her, to the master of the ba.l'geprior to the filing of the libel. It is thought that this sum cannot be recovered in this action. It is a claim against the libelant held and owned by D. Finlayson personally. This is a proceeding in rem against the barge to recover wages due a IHariner. Finlayson cannot set off the libelant's personal debt to him against the debt of the barge to the libelant. I am not familiar with any case where claims so highly favored as mariners' wages have been defeated by such as· signments. Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mason, 161, 171, Fed. Cas. No. 17,680; Munroe, 2 Spr. 39, Fed. Cas. No. 3,863; Pars. Shipp. & Adm. 433. The libelant is entUled to a decree for$2S.35 and costs.
THE VIOLA. HAWKINS v. THE VIOLA.
(District Court, S. D. New York. March 5, 1894.)
BalPPING--DAMAGES-AcT FEB. 13, 1898- VESSEl,S MUTUALloY AT FAULT-LIA· BILITY Fo.R CARGO. DAMAGE.
Sectipn 3' of tIle act of February 13, 1893, was not .designed to re" Heve at the expense of the other, in cases of collision by '. mutual fault. The prior rules of apportionment are to be adhered to