Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/351

 OBHANOTICIH V. STEAM-TUO AHBBIOA. S37 �person to whom the original patent was granted, ana whbse name was John Dewchfield, was the person to whom the re-issue was granted. Such proof is always competent in a case like this. Jackson v. Stanley, 10 John. 133. See North- western FireExtinguisher Co. t. Philadelphia Fire Extinguisher Co. 6 0. G-. of Pat. Office, 34. Infringment of the first claim of the re-issue is proved, and not contested. As the pa,tent bas expired there can be no injunction, but the plaintiff is entitled to the usual decree, in other respects, in regard to said first claim. ���Obhanotioh, Master of the Bark Eebecca, ». Thb SiEAM-Tua �Amebica.* �{Gireuit Oomi, E. D. Pennsylvanîa. October 28, 1880.) �1. AUMIBAI/nr— COLLISIOS— TOWING— ObDEB Dr WHICH VœssBLS SHomj) �BH TowBD. — ^A tug held responsible for damages by a collision be- tween two vessels in tow wbile passiflg through a narrow, shallow channel, where It appeared that one of the vessels was known to be a bad steering vessel, and had been placed by thë master of the tug behind the other vessel. �2. BaMB— CONTBIBDTOBT NeOMGBNCB — ORDBB GiVBlI AT MOMBNT 0» �Imminent^ Pbeil. — The injured vessel hdd not to be liable for an or- der given at a moment of Imminent peril, caused by the bad steering of the other vessel. �3. Bamb— Damaob— BiLM FOB BEPAiEfl — When Pbima Facib Evi- �VESCB. — Upon the question of the amount of repairs necessitated by a collision, the testimony of the master as to the aggregate cost of the repairs, and the testimony of the vessel's agent as to the payment of the bills, together with the production of the bills receipted, consti- tute pmtia fade evidence of the amount of damage, without caUing the men who did the work. �4. tîAMB— Lobs bt Detention— Rate of Demubbage— When Peima �Facie Evidbncb. — Upon the question of damages by detention while undergoing repairs, the rate of demurrage fixed by the vessel's char- ter-party, accompanied by evidence that it is the rate adopted by the maritime ezchange of the port, is prima facie evidence of the amount of loss. �Appeal from the decree of the district court, in admiralty. �•Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. v.4r,no.4 — 22 ����