Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/77

 62 fsdesal kepobteb. �The Robert Gaskin {District Court, E. D. Miehigan. January 31, 1881.) �1. Admtbalty — Laches. �Where libellant sufCered over six years to elapse before flling his Iibel,_the ves- sel having been within the district several times, and it appearing, further, that she had been sold to a bonafide purchaser having no knowledge of the claim, il was held he could not recover, notwithslaiiding the fact that the libel was flled before the sale took place. �2. Bame— Notice. �The flling of a libel, and the issue of an attachment, without seizure of the vessel, is not conatructive notice of the pendency of the suit. �In Admiralty. �This was a libel for towing the barge Eobert Gaskin from Bay City to Late Erie, August 12, 1873; amount clalmed, $150; defence, stale claim. The.tes- timony sliowed that the present owners bought the Gaskin, which was a for- elgn vessel, March 12, 1880, for a valuable consideration, and without notice of libellant's claim. At the time the services were rendered she was owned in Kingston, Ontario, and was generally engaged in the Canadian trade. In 1874 she made three trips to Sault St. Marie, remaining each time five or six days. Upon returning from one of these trips, she lay at Port Huron 12 hours, discharging cargo. In 1875 she waa in Miehigan four times, and upon one trip lay in Detroit river, opposite the city, for several hours. In 1876 she was again at Bay City, where libellants resided. They visited her here ; made a demand upon the master for the payment of their Mil. They were content, however, with promises, and made no efforts to collect by legal proceedings. The barge was in Miehigan three times in 1877, and once in 1878, but this fact was not known to the libellants. In 1879 she was again in this neigh- borhood, and lay off Detroit for about 18 hours. The bill appears to have been sent to the marshal at this place, with instructions to collect, in the spring of 1877, but no libel was flled until October 17, 1879, when an attach- ment was issued and kept alive by renewals until June 23, 1880, when she was seized. This was three months after she had been sold, and eight months after the libel was flled and the first attachment issued. �J. W. Finney for libellant. �Wm. A. Moore, for claimant. �Brown, D. J. In this case six years and three months elapsed from the time the service was rendered to the day the libel was filed. No excuse is shown for the delay. In The Hercules, 1 Brown, Adm. 659., I had occasion to hold that the libel should be filed during the current season of navigation, or as early the following season as it was probable the vessel could be seized. The testimony does not show such an absence from these waters as precluded the necessity ��� �