REPoRTER,
·vol. 51.
that tihat use cuts no figure: in this case. The Nixon device and the MVElrtnore device were the first embodying any conception of a holder aIld cutter for roll paper to be used for wrapping purpo8es. They were both practical, both successful. The complainants' device, although an improvement in detail of construction, is nothing more than an eqUiValent embodiment of the same conception. It is completely anticipated. The contention by counsel for complainants that the others were mere experiments, long ago abandoned, is altogether untenable. The former rlecree herein will be set aside, and the bill dismissed at complainants' cost.
. THE
T. W.
SNOOK.
GRISWOLl>
et al. v. T,alj1,T.W.
SNOOK, {CONTINENTAL INS.
QQ., Inter-
vener.) (District Oourt, N. D. nUna;ts. June 18, 1892.) . A arrested in a suit to recover damages done to the hull of another vessel :'-by a collision was released:6n:l bond·. Afterwards an insurance company intervened . .
.. :in suit, claimin.'r: tlu;:t.t the cargo of th", other vessel had been insured by the ,coIDpany,and had been totally destroyed by the collision. A tlecreewas rendered findmg the libeled vessel guilty. Held, that the insurance company should not be al!9wed to be let. in to share in the decree to the extent of what might remain of the penalty of the bond after satisfying the decree in reg-ard to the damage to the'otlier vessel, since the bond was glvenonly to satisfy the cause of action set oUt in .the oriR;inallibeL
In Admiralty. On motion. Libel by thefirmlJlf Griswold & Manchester against the propeller T. W. Snook for damages caused by a collision. A decree was rendered in favor of the libelants. The Continental Insurance Company intervened, and now 'moves to be letin to partiCipate in the decree. Robert Rae, for Continental Ins. Co. BLODQMT, District Jl,ldge. On the 18th day of September, 1887, a collision occurred inthlil waters of Chicago river between the propeller T. W. Snotikand the canal boat Geol'gia, whereby the' Georgia was sunk; the Georgia at the time being in tow of the canal propeller City of Henry. Griswold & Manchester, ali! owners of the Georgia, filed their libel in this on the 20th of September, 1887, charging that the collision wag cause4.by the fault of thQse in charge of the Snook,and claiming dam.ages. for the loss of the Georgia to tlieamount ,of $2,000, her alleged value. A monition was issued, andth'e.Snook arrested by the marshal Qf the district, and on the 4th of October, 1887. the Snook was released. from such arrest on a bond given by Charles A. Cook, William C. Wil-
THE T. W. SNOOK.
24'5
son, and Price & Miller, in the penal sum of $4,000, conditioned that, "if the obligors in said bond should abidA by and satisfy the decree of said court if final, or of any appellate court, then that said obligation should be void; otherwise to remain in full force." On the 19th day of January, 1888,-more than three months after the Snook had been so released,-the Continental Insurance Company filed what purported to be an intervening libel in the case of Griswold & Manchester against the Snook, and an original libel against the propeller City of Henry, her engines, etc., alleging that said company was an insurer of a cargo of 6,250 bushels of corn on board the Georgia at the time she was sunk by such collision, which said cargo was owned by Griswold & Manchester, and that the loss of said cargo by said collision was total; that the Georgia and two other canal boats were all in tow of the canal propeller City of Henry, and that such collision occurred by reason of the negligent and unskillful management of the said propellers Snook and City of Henry; that in the month of December, 1887, said company paid the owners of said cargo the insured value thereof, which amounted to $2,550; wherefore it was prayed that said company be allowed to intervene for its interests, and that a monition issue against the propeller City of Henry, and that the City of Henry be condemned to pay whatever Bum is pronounced against her. The owners of the Snook answered the original libel, denying that the collision occurred by reason of any negligence or want of skill of those in charge of the Snook. Proofs were taken, and the case brought to hearing on said proofs in November last, and the court found that the Georgia was sunk by reason of the fault and negligence of those in charge of the Snook. No proofs were taken on the part of this intervener, and no appearance made in its behalf. No monition was issued for the seizure of the Snook or City of Henry under the intervening petition, and in fact the case has been dormant, so far as this intervention is concerned. until this motion was made, since the decree was entered in the original case. It is now insisted on behalf of the insurance company that it shall be let in to participate in the decree to be rendered in the original cause to the extent of whatever amount lIlay remain of the penalty of the bond after satisfying the decree in favor of the owners of the hull of the Georgia. There is no allegation in this intervening libel of any right of subrogation on the part of the insurance company to the rights of the owners of the cargo as against the party in fault for the loss of the cargo. I do not think this' application on the part of the insurance company should prevail, my reasons being briefly that at the time the bond was given on which the Snook was released no claim was made in the proceedings, except for damages to the hull of the Georgia, and, in fact, it was not until about two months ,after this bond had been given that the insurance company paid the loss on the cargo, and thereby acquired any right of intervention or subrogation. The sureties on the bond must be presumed to have signed it solely on the understanding that their liability was only to satisfy the cause of action set out in the libel, which was for the damage to the hull .of the Georgia. The case of The Oregon, 45 Fed. Rep. 62, relied upon
246
FEDERALREPORTEB, vol. 51.
bythe:pJ.!(l)Ottit for the insUrance company, does not seem to me applicable to, the {aetadnthis cl!lse,.The motion is therefore overruled, and the intervening petition' dismissed. ·,1
THE
CURLEW.
BOWRING et al.
'D. NINE THOUSAND BUNCHES OF BANANAB.
(District Oourt. D. Maryland. July 8, 1892.) CSARTlliRPAR!J:'Y-LIABILITY OJ' OWNER-BREAKAGE OF MACBlNERY.
Unaer' a oharter party by 'Which a steam"r 'Was let for the fruit trade the owners stipulated to maintain the steamer's machinery in a thoroughly efficient condition for tbe accidents' excepted. HeW, upon the proof, that the breaking of the junk 11ng of the high-press\lre cylind"r was an accident not attributable to defects in the. maChinery.,or want of efficiency, and that the owners of the steamer were n?t .liable .for damage to a cargo of fruit caused by delay in the vuyage reSUlting from the accident. .
In Admiralty. Robert H. Smith and John H. Thomas, for Henry Bros.· & Co. and the cargo of bananas. Blacki8ton & Archibald and the Curlew. MORRIs,District Judge. These are cross libels arising out of a claim by Bowring & Archibald, owners of the steamer Curlew, for the hire of the steamer, and a claim by Henry Bros. & Co., who were the charterers, for damaF:etoa curgo of bananaEl, which they ·allege was caused by the failure of.theownersto maintain the .steamer in emcient.state in hull and machinery, as stipulated in the charter party. The steamer was let by the owners to H. Dumois & Co., of New York, for. the Jruitt,rade,by 8 charter part}', dated March 23, 1889, for the period ,of one year, with an option of three months longer. Henry Bros. & 'Co. were interedted with H. Dumois & Co. in that charter, and before tae expiration Of the year the steamer passed exclusively into the (JOSseSl'lion of Henry Bros. & Co., and the owners dealt with them as the persons for whose benefit the charter' party was in force, and rendered tb"embills for the hire. On July 21, 1890, by a second charter party, the steamer was let hy the owners directly to Henry Bros. & Co. for anoth'er period to commence at the expiration of the first charter party, and tocontiilUEl until January 1, 1891.[ The steamer was employed by the charterers in importingtruit from tJie West Indies, chiefly bananas; and the voyage on which the damage complained of happened commenced'in Baltimore 24, 18QO, and ended on the arrival of the llteftmef in ,Baltimorean July The bananas had been omered by the charterers to becutllnd :ready at Jamaic8 to be put 011 board the stealuer ooJ'uly 2d, upon ,the expectation that she would arrive there Oil ,J.ul11ilt, ·imd on theineXtday be ready to receive her