H1vontions.· Whether the defendant can. bi.wfully-obtain,th.:rig'bit other roads, iaiunimportant. ' Theplaintiffaupposed it and _ conferred the privilege of' rising his inventions on streh The statement in the bill, that the are l1sea."uuderchar" isalsounini" tered privileges aequired sincethe date-of the Porlant. It does follow that the use has .been extended or increased,by reasonoof such subsequently-acquired privileges. The plea, is sustained.
(Di8trict'Oourt, E. D. Penn8ylvania. 'June 22, 18B1.)
1. OF Foulib Sl1STAIN ALLEGATION OF RESPONDENT THAT BREACH WAS CAUS1WBY: LrBELX,ANT'S FAILURE TO PERFORM IVERBAL AGREElIlENT :MAQIIl A'r :THE _TIME OF THE , CHARTER, ANI;> NOT INCONSISTENT THEREWITH. . ,,
" . ' . '). ! ·
Libel against a Tug for Breach of Coiltract :,', Libellant, by a written agreement, chartered ;the tug for. use in certain dredging:operations at the price of, He that the tug failed- to perform the-woxk. Respondents averred that, bya verbal agreement made at time as. the written charter, libellant agreed to furnish, the .and pay the current expenses of the tug in part p.8lyment of the $500 per month; and that he failed to do this, whereby: tlie trig unable to: perform the work.· Various question of"law;affeotingthe Validity of the'lienclaimed by libellant,were raised upon the argument. Theodore M. Etling and Henry Ro Edm;un.d6; forJibellant. , Henry Flanders, for respondent., - , " , " 'BUTLER, D. J'.Accepting the libellant's view,: of theseveralunpor. taut questions oHaw discussed, .he is 'still not.entmed to reeove:t;.I find the facts.tobe,snbstantially, as stated liy 7the respondent., The verbal agreement respecting supplies, and the. time, 'and manner of paying for the vessel's \services, .itdblly prov:ed by the· master and, pRot,-is prineipally admitted,eon· er0ss-exaniinationj by the libel],ant, and is not:iiuQonaistent,with the The, agreement is; fllr:thrInore, reasonable. and" tperefora, Plobaible: It Itvoid sthe ..()r the.. to the danger of 'li'ens 'arid" attacllIneiits: ,. rhai 'it' I-Complied . with is proved by the same witnesses,-the master and pilot,-who
by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
in this. as in the other point, are supported by surrounding oiroum. stances,-the master's repeated complaints and demands; seeking sJWplies on the libellant's credit, leaving the work only when they could not be obta.ined without pledging the vessel; and the absence of any other apparent motive for leaving. The failure of the libellant to bdrawal. The legal keep his contract justified the respondent's wi questions raised need not,therefore, be considered at this time. A decree will be entered for the respondent, with costs.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. July 5,1881.)
1. BILL OF &LE-INvAI.IDITY OF, WHEN" SWNATURE OBTAINED BY FBAUDDECREE OF DISTRIOT COURT AFFIRMED.
Appeal from Decree of the District Court in Admirality. The facts of the case are fully reported in 6 FED. REP. 732. Walter George Smith and Francis Rawle, for appellant. A. C. Sheldon and Curtis Tilton, for appellee. MoKENNAN, C. J. The libellant is entitled to the relief which he seeks, if the bill of sale signed by him of date March 20, 1880, is not valid and binding upon him. While he admits the signing of it, he denies that he was acquainted with or informed of its contents, and says his execution of the paper was procured deceptively and fraudulently. If this be so, the bill would be totally ineffective as a. transfer of the ownership of the vessel, whose possession he now seeks to recover. While the proofs are conflicting, the preponderance is in favor of libellant's hypothesis, that the bill of sale is invalid because of the circumstances touching the execution of it, and the subsequent use of it, not contemplated or intended by both the parties when it was signed. The opinion of the learned judge in the.court below, sufficiently indicates the reason for auch a conclu. sion, and it is not necessary to collate and discuss the evidence to show that such a conclusion of fact is maintainable. The libellant is entitled to a decree for the delivel;y of the vessel, etc., to him, and for the payment of the agreed· amount of damages, to wit, $275, and costs, and a decree will be entered accordingly.
. -Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.