Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/263

 MILLBANK V. SCHB. "a. P. CRANMEB." 256 �ous of correcting them, it wonld seem to be a case, partiou- larly so far as the allowance of $1.50 instead of $1.76 a foot is concemed, for vacating the award. �Upon the whole I have corne to the conclusion, taking the allegations of the bUl together, the complainant has stated a case which may ultimately resuit in the award being set aside, and that this bill ought not to be dismissd upon demarrer. Possibly, counsel may agree to submit the case upon the testimony tending to invalidate the award, without going into the testimony showing the amount actually due the com- plainant, if the award be set aside, and thus save expense; but I think it would be unjust to dismiss tbis bill, and allow the case to go to the supreme court, where the bill might be held sufficient, the case sent back, and the litigation indeû- nitely prolonged. �The demurrer will therefore be overruled. ���MiLLBANK V. The Sohooner "A. P. Cranmbr" and others. �{District Court, E. D. Nm York. January 24, 1880.) �Collision — Stbam Vessel and Salling Vessel. — Rdlb 20, Ket. 8t. ( 4233,— Uule 20, Kev. 8t. { 4233, that a steam vessel shculd keep out of the way of a sailing vessel does not apply to a tow composed of two steam tugs and 17 canal boats. �In admiralty. �Benediot, J. On the twenty-fourth day of July, 1877, the schooner A P. Cranmer and the canal beat John A. Heister came in collision in the bay of New York and the canal boat was sunk. At the time of the collision the schooner was sailing down the bay upon the starboard tack, and was between Bedloe's Island and the can-buoy on Eobbins Eeef. The canal boat was the outside boat on the port side of the head tier of a tow of 17 canal boats then being towed from Amboy to New York by two tugs — the W. G. Nichols and the Sammie. The tugs were towing one ahead of the other, the Niehols being the leading boat, and were puUing the tow at ��� �