the Veneiian, the Reverehs:Ving made the collision inevitable by her own misconduct. The Revere must be held solely responsible. The libel of the city of'BostOll will be dismissed, with costs; and, in that of the owner of the Venetian, an interlocutory decree will be entered for the libelant. Ordered accordingly·
'THE SWIFTBURE. t
CHAPMAN f1. THE SWIFTSURE.
(DiBtrict OOU'I't, B.D. New York.
June 2, 1888.)
SALVAGE-Bl'ECIFIO BuxAOREED vl'ON-DISl'UTE AS TO AMOUNT-UNREASONABLE AMOUNT-AWARD.
As the tug W. was cruising in the neighborhood of Bandy Hook she learned that the sieamer 8.was1ying disabled some 15 miles down the Jersey coast. and proceeded assiatan,ce. , The 8., with a valuable cargo on board, was lying some eight miles from the beach, unable to proceed; an accident having happened to her machinerY. The weather was lDtensely cold, both vessels were covered with ice, and, a,thjcll; fog prevailed. A bargain was made be,tween the mastersof t):le tug !lond the steam-ship to tow the latter to New York. The libel alleged 'that the agr,eed compensation was $4,000; the answer alleged that it was $400. The value 'Of' the tug was claimed to be ,ao,ooo; the value of the 8.$75,00001' and her freight about $11,000 or $12,000. Held, on the evidence, that the sum agreed on was $4,000; and, as this was not such an price for the salvage service as to require the court to ,set aside a contract deliberately made to pay that sum, the libelants,should recover,'$4,ooo, }),Ut without costs.
Goodrich, Deady It Goodr.,ich, for libelant. Butler, Stillman It H'/!-obard, for claimant.
BENEDIOT,I. The clear weight of evidence is to the effect that the m!lster.of theSwiftsureagreed ;\"lith the master of the ,libelanVs tug that a salvage compensation,Qf $4,000 should be paid for the services of the tug.iq relieving the'steamer. ,The only question open to discussion is whether the price so agreed on was unreasonable. Upon the evidence, and taking into cQnsideration the value of the steamer and her condition, I am not prepared to say that $4,000, is a sum so out of proportion to the benefit received as to require the court to set aside a contract deliberately made to pay that sum. The libelants may therefore have a decree for $4,000. I give nOicosts,because I consider the snm awarded a very liberal salvage compensationfoHhe work and labor that the libelant's tug was called on to perform.';(: A diatribu'tion of the salvage will be made on application of the
Reported by R. D.& W'yllys Benedict/ltsqs., of the New York bar.
HEl>EN HASBROUOX.l BOfER V.
PAREIS V. THE HELEN HASBROUOX.
(District Oourt, E. D. N(J/J) York. July 23, 1886.)
COLLI8ION-BcuoONER AND TuG-OVERTAKING VESSEL-LIABILITY.
Where a collision occurred in the North riv,er between a schooner and a tug, whereby the latter was rundown by the sailing vessel, it was held, on the evidence, that the schooner was the overtaking vessel, should therefore have avoided the tug, and was in fault for the collision.
Owen Gray, for Soper and the Helen Hasbrouck. Alexander Ash, for Pareis. '
BENEDIOT,;roc The course of the schooner is proved to have been directly up the North river, or one point to the eastward of the oourse of the river. The differenoe of one point wonldnot be important. ,Tije upon the cQufBe' efthe tug; for if the course' the tug was the same as that of the schooner, or within one point of the course of the schooner, the schooner, which broke ground below the tug, was the following vessel, and bound to avoid the tug. "If': otlthe other hand, the tug's course was crossing that of the scb'oOJ:i'6r,:'the obligation to avoid the schooner rested upoD'the tug, and she' was in fault for having done so. Upon this quesHon my opinion is 'With the The testimony from the schooner as to the-coUrse of the tug istoQ for they make the tug heading towatds Ferry, Jersey City. Bound, as the tug was, for Sixty-eighth street, , in New York, it seems to me incredible that she should have' been sailing towards Central Ferry, Jersey City. Her natural course, would be the cbutse given bythoEie in charge of her, viz., up -the'river. Upon that Murse it is evident that, with a prdper Iookoo,t,wll;ichshe says she had, the approach of the schooner from astern might' not have been observed. Upon that course she might havebeeri struck as she was struck. Upon the course given her by those, 'on, the a blow the schooner delivered her, theschooJ,wr bringing up on the tug's, fantail, and her martingale pilot-hoUBe door, does not appear to me p o s s i b l e . ' .... The evidence from the respective ves,Sela cannot be. of some of the witnesses must. therefore of the case, the distance of the tug, and the b,low, that was delivered, lead me to. disregard the te,stimony, schooner that the tug. was seen by them. upQn a course
by R. Do. Wyl1ys Benedict, Esqs.,
New York bar.