35 F. 428 -

428

FEDERAL REPORTER.

small sample Ctf the dog's head, horse, horseshoe, as showing tlie class of workwe want, i. e.. tim·ness. Can't you send me a sketch (before engraving) showing your desigrlel"s idea or conception of how the imitation should bell Just as soon as we can get an Idea how it will look, will forward gray goods at once, as the trade are now ready to give orders. Please let me hear from you by return mail, if you can, as to how the matter is progressing," etc. These two letters show that Gilmore and the designer were furnished with a sample of a seersucker, and with CJ photographic copy of the sample, and were told to imitate it,and that the way in which the imitation was to be effected was left with the designer, who was solely responor sible for a successful result, and to whom the task of finding an conception of the method of imitating the crinkle was solely committed. 'the case does not contain the facts which generally come courts l1pon the subject of joint or sole invention. It is not that of an inventor and a who puts into form the inventor's new idea. The idea df Streat was old. Had it been new, the facts would be different. The mventionconsisted'in the new and successful way by which the old idea #as made effective. Streat was the originator of nothing novel, except itidirectly. He asked the designer to furnish an accurate imitation of the s,eersucker; and, if invention was. necessary, to invent an imitation, and request was complied with. The bill is dismissed.

EUBERWEG '/I. LA COMPAGNm GENERALE 'l'RANSATLANTIQUE.&

'.

(IJiatrict Oourt, E. D.New York. May 23,1888.)
ADMIRALTy-JURISDICTION-PIER IN NEW YORK CITy-EASTERN DISTRICT 01' NEW Yon.

1.

..

2.

A;pier extending into tbe North river from the city of New York is not wLtllin the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States for the East· ern dis.trict of New York.
PROCESS-FOREIGN ATTACHMENT-MARSHAL'S RETURN.

On flling dIe libel in this cause, process was iSRued, with a clause of foreign " . attachment. The marshal returned that respondent could not be found within the jurisdiction, and tbat he bad therefore attached one of its st4>amers. Res'pondent'sgeileral agent thereupon appeared, and. having given bonds, moved to set aside the attachment, stating in his affidavit that he could have been found at his office on pier 42, North river, west of the bulkhend, and therefore asked that the marshal's return, together with the attachment and .the bonds givenunder'jt, be set aside. The liffidavit contained no statementt)1at the marshal had made no proper search for respondent before attachmg the .steamer. Held, that sp,rvice of process on such pier would not have been . withinthejurisdiction of this court; hence the marshal's return was not fall· sifled, and the attachment, and bond given under it, were valid.

In Admiralty. Motion to set marshal's return, attachment of vessel, and stipulation given on such attachment. f BiddleJc Ward, for libelant.
"'R.eported by Edward G. Benedict,Esq., of the New York·bar..

EUBERWEG fl. LA COHI'AGNtEGENERAr..B TRANSATLANTIQUE.

429

eo;udert

Bros..'far respondent.

BENEDICT, J. This case comes before the court npon a motion on the part of the respondents to set aside' the retnm of the marshal to· thepto.; cess, also the attachment made by the marshal by virtue of the process, and also the bond given by the respondents to procure the discharge of the property attached. The action is against a foreign corporation in personam. . Upon filing the libel, and in accordance with the rules and practice, a process was issued, with a clause of foreign attachment. Upon this process the marshal was directed to cite and admonish the respondents, if they shall be found within the jurisdiction of the court, that they be and appear before the court at a day named.. The process contaiped the further command, "If the said defendants cannot be found, tha.t YOG attach their goods and chlttteis to thE' amOl1ntsued for.." To thisprocess the marshal made the following return: "After diligent search I able to finG. the defendants within the jurisdictioIl: of this court, and. obedience to this monition I aHached th.e La Bourgogne.,j The respon(lents thereupon appeared in the action, and tlie re-; leasl;J ofthe vessel from custody by giving a bond. to abide the in accor.dance with the practice' of the court,. 'arid thereupon make this .mo,,The application is founcled upon an affidavit of the of the respondents, in which the agent, among other things, after ,setting forth the process, attach)11ent,and return, ,says that the defendantis !l, foreign corporation existing und,er the laws ()f France, owning apd opa line ofsteamers plying betweeuNew York and Havre, and having regularly established offices at the port of New York for thetrapsac-, tion of its business there; that the deponent has long been the general' , agent ,of the line for the United States, and by permission of the laws of New York has carried on the business of the respondents at the port of New York, with full power to accept service' ,of process and defend all actions brought against the respondent; that at the time of the filing of the libel herein, as well as at the time -of the attachment, the said general agent had maintained two offices for the trans.action of the business of the respondeht;-oneat No.3 Bowling Green, in the city of New York; the other on pier 42, North river, west of the bulkhead, waters, 'within the county of New York; at e.ach of which said offi(e,S the general agent could be found, and prOCe/3S 'served upon him there" A careful examination of the affidavit shows that it contains no sta;tehlent that the marshaJmade no proper search to fi'nd the, attaching the steamer. Assuming, for the purposes of this, appli.W!u9fi,) that the service of the citation upon the general agent would be an effectual service of the process upon the respondent corporation, and ,the point beiug waived that the motion is too late,theonly question presented by the application is whether the fact :that the respondents have a general agent who maintains an office in theirbellillf on pier .42.in the North river, west of the bulkhead, compels the inference that the general agent beeh: there found by; themll.rshid, 'and thllssh6ws- that thecitlltiOn1 could have been served' within. the jurisdiction of! the: ootiML:

in;

4S0
To arrive at such a conclusion requires a decision that pier 42 in the North river is within the jurisdiction of this court. So, upon the argument of thl:l motion, the ground taken on behalf of the respondents was that, inasmuch as pier 42 in the riveriswest of the bulkhead, and built over waters within theC01,1Dty of New York, service of process upon the respondents there would have been servioe within the jurisdiction of this court. The jurisdiction of this court, as defined by statute, is to be found in section 542, Rev. St., and is as lo11ows: "The district COUI;\S of the Southern and Eastern districts of New York shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the waters within the counties of New York; Kings, Queens. and and over all seizures made and all matters done in such waters; and all processes or orders issued out of either of said courts, or by any judge thereof; shall rrin and be executed in any part of the said waters." It has never until now been contended that bv virtue of this statute a process issued from the Eastern district of New York could be served upon one olthe piers of New York city. Such contention cannot be upheld. The piers of New York city., although they extend over the waters o,f'the county of New York, are Dot part of the waters of that connty, but part of the land, and they are not within the jurisdiction of this court. 1'hisdecision leaves nothing of the present application; for, assuming tHat :it'wdtlId competent for the.respol1d,ents, on a motion like this, to show the falsity of the marshal's return, (a proposition by no means asIlellted to ,) such falsity is not shown. Forunght that a ppear8, the marsha1'sretl1rn is striotly true; and, being true, the validity of the attachof the: bond given;to disoharge the property, is not open to . . '

be

THE ANGETJA MARIA. MANTOUT v; THE ANGELA MARIA.
(DiBtrict Court, D. South Carolina. June 21, 1888.)
IfARI'I'1MELrENIl-PmoRITIES-BoTTOMRy..,..MAsTIUt'S WAflES-ITALIAN VESSEL.

(8t/llabuB lYu tllB Court;)

In tbe proceeds of sale of an Italian vessel sold by an order of the. court in ptoceeditigs to enforce a bottomry bond given in Algiers on vessel alid cargo, on Which bond the II)Rster was not personally liable, the lien of the master for his w,ages, secured to him by Italialllaw" sustained liS against owners of the cargo, who are American citizens, assignees of the bill of lading made in Italy to Italian residents or order.

In Admiralty· . Smythe &; Lee, for libelants. ,J. N. ,Nathans, fotvessel and master. ,'Barker ,;G1J},UJ,lld &; Jilitzsimons, for the cargo. SIMQNTON, J. To understand. the prElcise question 'heforeus. a brief of facts will be needed. The Angela Maria,an Italiauvessel