The New York herald., 1870-12-01
THE COURT S .
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Proceedings In ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS or Tow
beais-Liens sa Vessels for Advances On
Repairs and Supplies.

Proceedings In pAdnsiralty-Liability or Tow
beais-Liens % Vessels for Advances On
Repairs and Supplies.
WASHINGTON, d. O., Nov. 80, 1870
No. 257 Clark ana the Buckeve Mutual Insurdnce
Company AppeIlants. vs. Tho Steamer Admiral
FdrTa0u. Appeal rom tho Circuit Court J0r the
southern District or Hlinofs.-This case was pro-
ceeding In admiralty to subject the steamer to the
payment OF damages for the loss Of the canal boat
Alax occasonsa BY the collidins Of the canal boat
wnlie 10 tow Of the steamer down the Illinois river
against ne piling OF the Meredosia railroad bridge
Iae District Court 9lsmissed Tho libel and that de-
cree was amrmed at the Circuit, when Mr.. Justice
Davis held that the loss was owing to the unavoid-
able danger Of navigation, and was not at
ssill on the part oi those who had charge
9l the steamer. As TO the measure OF
course OF her employment, 1t was said:-The per-
sons In charge OF the steamer contracted that they
had complete knowledge Of their business, which
diligence in towing the cansiboas % they did not
engage 70 insure the safety OF the boat nor to have
diligence. Under this rule the steamer was not
considered cons chargeable with the fault and the accI.
Gsnt was attributed % the force Of diagonal cur
controlling. The appellants insist that the accident
was occasioned by the want OF lookout and BY un-
theory Of the Circuit Judge. Lawrence Proudfeot
for appellants Lyman Trunbull for appellces.
No. 200. Pssderyast ct al. us. rns Steamer. Koso-
fdn0S ana NO. 2Sl. Same pS. Steamer General
Custer Apped,s rom the Circuit Court Jor the D,s
srtct or Aarvland.The appellants filed ibeis in the
District Court against the steamers in which they
claimed Admiralty liens for advances made on the
credit Of the steamers to procure necessary supplies
and repairs. The cases were heard together, the
evidence being the same IN BOTH The District Court
Sustained the lens but on appeal to the Circuit the
decrecs were reversed and the lbels dismissed. The
eppellants contend that there was express agree
ment for liens as security for the advances, and that
q stipulation which was made that the appellants
sheuld insure their disbursements meant that they
should insure their liens on the ships for such ais
Dursements. In no other sense could they be In
sured. Admiralty courts enforce express as well as
implied liens II the contracts OF maritime char
acter. Ii there were no such express contracts Inn
Piled liens arose from making the advances under the
circumstances shown. The facts are reviewed 10
show an inference that the owner had no personal
credit In Baltimore, where the repairs were made,
and positive testimony on that point Is also
called TO the attention Of the Court. The fact shown
by the appellees that the owner was IN Baltimere
when some OF the debts were contracted, ana that
he ordered some OF the articles nom which they
arose. 1t IL insiste5 did not prevent the accrual OF
| . Men, therefore. The decision In the Sultana Is
cited; al 0 Grapeshot 70 WAL, 1871 The appellees
rely on the credit OF the owner In Baltimore at the
time and an opposite view OF the facts. 9. 7
Wallis and J. H. Thomas for appellants w. s.
Bryan FOR appellees.