Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/678

 BISSELL V. STEAM-TUG ALEXANDEB. 671 �libellees, that the vessel could be taken from the master and part owner by his co-owners. No pertinent authority, nor any persuasive argument, is submitted in support of thia de- niai, and I adjudge it untenable ia law. �And, lastly, it was denied by the answer, and contended at the hearing, that no sufficient demand for possession was made by the libellants prior to the filing of the libel and the seizure of the brig, and that, therefore, upon this ground alone — supposing it to be the only point of defence raised — the court should pronounce for the libellees. To this the libellants make answer — First, that by no law or well-settled, invariable practice is it required that a demand of possession be made before a seizure in a cause of possession instituted by the majority owners ; and, second, that if a demand were necessary the facts in proof, by the captain's testimony and admissions upon the witness stand, and written documents exhibited and ref erred to, show and prove a demand and re- fusai, which the court, sitting in admiralty, should adjudge to be, under the circumstances, sufl&eient as matter of law or matter of fact. In this second answer of the libellants I concur, and thus render it unnecessary to pass upon their first answer. �It results that I must pronounce for the libellants ; and, as regards costs, must adjudge that neither party reoover costs of the other. ���BissELii V. The Steam-Tug Alexander. �(District Court, E. D. New Torle. Jiily 16, 1880.) �1. COLLISION— Canal-Boat en Tow as Tua — NBaLiGENCE of Captaih op BOAT.— The owner of a tug, originally built for a pleasure boat, sent her to tow a canal-boat, loaded with ice which he had bought, through New York harbor. The tug being very small, and the boat large and heavy, a man was put at the helm of the boat by her captain to steer. On the way down the bay a collision occurred, in which the boat was injured, and her master libelled the tug for damages. Held, that upon the evidence tho captain of the canal-boat must be held responsible for the steering of his boat, and therefore the tug was not responsible for t'ie collision that ensued. ����