:;90
REPORTER.
questIon not necessal'y to be deeided. The discussion of the facts lnd the law applicable to the case 'by the district judge is so full and Ghorough than nothing can be added to its force. Decrees must be entered for the'amounts of damages awarded be. low, with interest from September 27, 1881, with the costs taxed in favor of the libelants below, and their oosts in this court, the bills of -lading deposited to be returned on
THE JULIA
L.
SHERWOOD.-
(District Court, E. D. New York. December 5,1882.) 1. VESSEL-LAnOR 4ND MATERIALS, SUPPJ;.IED-LIEN UNDER STATE STATUTE. "fhe facts that a domestic vessel 'was placed 'upon a dry-dock for the purpose of being repaired, that she was there repaired,ahd had not left tbe place'where up \o,the time Qf ,tUing (10 libel her by the owner of the dock for labor and material furnished, are sufficient to support a lien on the vessel tberefor under the New York state statute. ' 2, SAME-FILIJ>G SPECIFICATION {IF· LIEN·.
The statute does not require the filing of a specification of lien, except in case the vessel departs from the po:-t. 3, STATUTORY LIEN-ENFORCE'MENT IN ADMmALTY.
Semble, that the facts proved in this case showed a lien enforceable in admiralty, aside.:lrOm' the provisions of thc state statute.
In Admiralty. TurtisG. Bergen, for libelant."; s. B. Caldwell, for claimant. BENEDw'r, D. J. The bill presented by the libelant, Theodore A. Crane, to the claimant and signed, by him as 'correct, coupled with the positive .evidence of a subsequent admission of its correctness by the, cla.imant, affords abundant prO<lf of, the averments of the libel that the items ,of labor and material mentioned in the bill were supplied by the libelant' to the boat upon the request of the owner. There is also proof in the case that such labor and material were necessary to the repair of the boat. The defense that this labor and materiallWere furnished upon the sale personal credit of the owner of the boi!:t, und to be paid for in four months, is not proved to my satisfaction. .Neither has it been proved to my satisfaction that the wbrk was performed under a contract to do it for a specific sum. entitled toa ,decree for the amount of the The ""Reported by It D. & WyllJ"s Benedi6t."
TIllER; , ". _' ··1 ·
5.91.
bill, less $25, proved to have been paid, ,provided the. -facts prqved show a subsisting lien upon the boat therdor. ' The facts proved to support the liens are that the, vessel was a domestic! vessel; that she was placed upon the libelant's dry-dock in Brooklyn. for the purpose of there being repaired; that she was there repaired, and, up to the time of filing the libel, had not left the place where the repairs were: done. No evidence of the filing of a specification of lien has been' given. These facts show a lien upon the vessel by virtue of,the provisions of the statute of the state of New York. , I do not understand the statute to require theflling of a, specifi.-. cation of the lien, except in case the vessel departfrom the port. , No adjudged case to the contrary of this has been referred to, and I suppose no such case exists. I therefore hold' the existence of a created by the state law ,to have been proved. It may be added that the fact set up in the answeras.a defense, namely, that the libelant took the vessel into, his custody fq, the,pur. pose of repairing her, and continued to hoMber in his p<?ssession until taken of by the marshal by virtue of process,! ,int,hia action, seems to bring the case within the. authority of the cf.tseQf The B.,F. Woolsey, 7 FED. ;REP. 110, accQrdinR to which libelant has, a liet;l in admiralty,aside, from of the state statute upon which the libelant hasrEllied. . " Leta decree be entered 'libelant for of ' $258.55, with interest 1, 18.80;:a .
the:s\ltU
THE TIGER LILY.-
(District Court, E. D. New York. November 14,1882.) . 1. NEGLIGENCE-PROOF OF DAMAGES.
On a reference to ascertain the amount of damages resulting from negligence, the libelant is bound to prove not only the injuries sustained, but also the amount of money necessary to repair such injuries; and an estimate including repairs not proved to have been made necessary by the accideD.t, cannot be taken as proof of the amount of damages. 2. COSTS AI,LOWF.D.
Where the libelant succeeded upon the lRRueR, ('osls were allowed him, eveh though he recovered less than the amount cla.lIlcJ..
In Admiralty. -*RppOl'ted by R D. & Wyllys Benedict.