The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-29
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Avend g. Rrothers VS.. Edward j. Gay, Error
30 the District Court Of L0nisiana-Steamer
Carroll VS.. John Green, Appeal from Mary
land Circuit Court.

Avend g. BROTHERS VS.. Edward j. Gay, Error
10 the District Court Of Lonisiana-Steamer
Carroll vs.. John Green, Appeal from Mary
land Circuit Court.
WASHINGTON, Oct. %, 1859.
No. 176-AUend Brothers, PLAINTIFFS IN Error, rs.
Ed,cdrd J. Gay, tn Error TO the circuit court for the
District or Loustdaa.-The plaintiffs in error were
merchants in New Orleans and factors Of Austin &
Adams, sugar planters in the parish Of ibervle, La,
and made advances, as claimed, to those parties OF
about $4,000 to enable them to raise the crop OF
1s65-66 for which they set up in their petition pr
vlege the crop o. 1885, The crop for that year
thirty Of cane, and being unable to pay their
debt to plaintis they sold TO them this sugar cane
which was in turn sold by the plaintiffs to one Cole
for $1,000 cash and $1,000 payable when Cole took
Cole took possession, the defendant In error, Gay,
Issued extcutory process against the land OF Adams
Il Austin. where the cane was stu lying in wlnrow,
and seized both the land and the cane Gay relus
ing to release the cane upon notice, the plaintiffs
were Obliged 10 rescnd their contract with Cole and
the cane IRON Gay. The court below held that the
planting claims Of ownership and privilege were
inconsistent IN that If they the owners OF the
cane then the privilege Of the crop did not exist:
and 1t was determined that they were the agents OF
the parties raising the cane and acted as such In the
transactions set forth, and as such agents could
not be regarded as privileged creditors who
entitled to prevent the OF the property by
other creators. Writ OF error was taken, the plain
tits in error contendng that under the Louisiana
code, having made the advances claimed, which
were used for supplies &C.. for the plantation, they
had privilege on The last crop and the crop IN the
ground, which entitled them to be preferred before
other creditors even those holding mortgages.
Even though the advances made were In money and
not in the form OF supplies still the privilege the
cane existed, Tor II was delivered 10 the plaintiffs.
The argument OF the defendant IN error maintained
the view taken by the court below, and conteDded
that III any case there was no SUCH delivery OF the
cane to the plantiirs III error as gave them title
claim. Thomas j. Durant for plaintlfis error, Louis
J0uln Tor defendant.
Steamer Cur7'0i, Baltimore ana ohio Rdilrodd
Company, claimants, cs John Ggeea-Appedt rom
me circuit Sou,t tor me Dastric or Marvand.-This
is case OF collision between the Carroll, bound up.
anu the scooner Loon U9una doWn lhe Jhesapeaks
December, 1885. The schooner was seventy-fve
tons burden, and the Carroll large steamer plying
between New York and Baltimore. The course Oi
the schooner was south ny east, with a far breeze
from the northwest, and her speed was about seven
miles an hour Her lights were properly suspended.
The night was bright star light, aud the steamer
was seen from the schooner wnen half nile dis
tant approaching her. The schooner held her
course steadily until the steamer when 800 yards
distant suddenly shifted her helm, changed her
course to the eastward and came directly down
upon the schooner. When IL was known on
bic sne starooafded her helm SO as TO
throw her head eastward, and thus avoid receiving
the blow amidships, by receiving forward Of the lore
mast the starOoard side. III an obllque direction.
The blow cut nearly through the schooner down TO
her cardboard streak and she soon hed up and
sunk. such was the claim OF the libel. The answer
states that az soon as the schooner was seen from
the steamer the helm OF the steamer was put 10
port, and so would have passed the schooner had
she kept ,her course: but that instead OF Keeping
her course the schooners helm being starboarded
she was thrown across the bow OF the steamer.
On this state OF facts the District Court below
decreed in favor of the beIlant Green, and against
the Baltimore and ONO Kaiiroad Company, for
$5907, with interest. On appeal to the Circuit
Court the decree was affirmed, and the cause then
came here. the appellant insisting that the steamer
complied with the law governing the movements OF
vessels IN danger OF collision, by porting her
helm sufficiently TO have passed the schooner had
she kept on her courses also that when the collision
became imminent the steamer slackened her speed
and reversed her engines, as required by the rules
OF navigation. IL is further claimed that In dsre-
gardng The law requiring her to keep her course the
schooner became responsible for the collision. The
appellee submits on this point that although it was
the duty by law, OF the schooner to keep her
under ordinary circumstances she was justified IN
changing it ~ SPECIAL circumstances rendering
departure necessary to avoid the danger when it
became Imminent. IL Is claimed that the departure
was justified by the article which makes any neglect
of any prccantlon required by the ordinary practice
Of seamen an nexcusabe fault. 1t is insisted that
the steamer had full time and opportunity to avoid
collision, and her neglect to DO so by keeping out OF
the way OF the schooner was the sole cause of the
n