..;:',tiIE

JO. W.VOSBUBGB.

239

than those mentioned in. the articles olthe act relating. todights sqallbe carried, and none :Ofth088 articles mention flash-lights; and section 2 of the act repeals all.laws and parts of laWIt mcoasisteiltwith those. articles. Moreover. the 'act of 1885, estahlisht'l ing international. rules for sea-going and coasting vessels, omits section 4234 of the Revised' Statu1es. . It follows, therefore, that if the schooner Bronson did not display a flash-light on the approach of the Lepanto, she was ,not in fault on that score. The decree of the circuit court is af· firmed, witb.intereet,and costs of the appeal toiba paid by appellant.

clares,tha,t. nO:other

THE F.

W. VOSBUBGB.

VOSBUBG&

Tm: CIAHPA EMILIA.

CIAHPA (Circuu

1.

,t1.

THEF. W.

court

qf

Second 01!rcuu. '.JanUU'7 18, 1891.)

A t.ug', wlt.ha.aliljl in tow on a hawser, gave a rank sheer in an attempt to put from one side to. t!l.e, ot.her of a dredge anohored in midstream, when so the l . latter t.Mt, 'althoulth t.he Ilhip inst.antly put. hel' helm hard over to follow the tUIr, , ahe came in collillion wit.h the dredge.' Be14, t.hat the tug waa liable. Where libelant. haa not appealed. he cannot. contend this court that oertala itemll of hill 1011 were improperl,y diaallowed in t.hecolirt. below. . .1 Fed. Rep. 117, a1Iirmed.

CoLLISION-TuGs A" TOWIl-VESSEL A'l ANOHOB-eHANGBOI' COURSB.

.I.APPBUS--PABTX NO'J' APPB,LLJJ:(G IJANNOT ,BE HEARD.

In Admiralty. Appeal from the circuit court of the .UnitedStatea for the eastern, d..istrict of New York. The district CQurt sustained the libel aga.inst the tug, (41 Fed. Rep. 57,) and claimants a.ppealed to the circuit court, which affirmed pro frmna the decree of the district court, and claimantsa.ppealed to this court. See 46 Fed. Rep. 866. Hyland & Zabriskie, (JosW.h A. Hyland, of, c01,msel,) for appeUa.nta. Wing, Shcudy & Putnam, (Charles a. Burlingham, of counsel,} for apoe . Before WALLACE and L!.COllBlC, Circuit Judges.
/:WAU4\CE, ,CirclJit J udge.This .is a libel bJ.'dUght by the, the ship Cia.mpa Emilia to recover damages sustained by .. collision which took place in the Delaware river, at Mifflin bar, November 2, 1888, with the dredge Arizona, then anchored in mid channel. The ship at that time was in tow of the tug F. W. Vosburgh, going northward, bound for Philadelphia. The dredge was anchored on the bar by spuds. She was about 92 feet long and about 34 feet wide. The ship was being towed on a hawser about 250 feet long. The tide was

I'EDERAl:i'UPORT$R,

vol. 50.

stronp;.flood.; The libel avers that, when very near the dredge, the Vosburgh took a rank sheer to port, and undertook to pass to the westward of the: dredge, and, although the ship instantly put her wheel hard and went off to port several points, she was so elose to the dredge that she fetched up on one of the lines by which it was anchored, and,hhr, port bow was brought into colli'!lion with the easterly corner of the dr-edge. The Vosburgh asserts that the collision was brought about solely by: tM carelessness of those in charge of the ship, in that they did tmlfdlloW' the tug; that the had shaped her course to pass to the westward of the dredge in due season, but that when she had arrived about opposite, and about 60 or 70 yards to the westward of the dredge, the ship took a sudden rank sheer to eastward, and thereby brought her port bow into collision with the dredge. The learned district judge, who this cause. in the court below, accepted the theory of thelibeIant, andconeluded that the collision arose from the attempt of the Vosburgh to pass from the east to the west side of the dredge when so nbhrthat the ship, while following the tug, brought up upon the line of.the, dredge. The case turns wholly upon questions of fact. -The <ililimants htWe taken the testimony of two witof thetug M. W. Hunt, and Tees, the nesses, t1mt,of ,Dasey, cook of that tug, who were not examined in the district court. The tug Hunt delive.red 4 message.to the ship, and then alongside, not fast to her, 'but keeping close by her on her port side, until the collis.t99k .. We ate Jbat the decree: of the district court was right. .It will not be us.eful to make any extended reference to the proofs. Itisproper to however,that we attribute very little weight to the testimony of of the CanQpicus,and none at all to the testimony of the two new witnesses, Dasey and Tees. Dasey's testimony is completely overthrown by his previous affidavit of November 10, 1888, in which he stated, in substance, that the collision was port made by the Vosburgh. The circumcaused by the :rank stance that· their tug struck the ',,'estwardly corner of the dredge when the ship struek the easterly cotner is significant. Why did not their tug follow the Vosburgh, if the Vosburgh was a hundred feet to the westward of the dredge, and the ship suddenly sheered more than that distance to the eastward? We accept the evidence adduced by the ship, all on board Of· her having been examined, as satisfactory to the fact that she was trying to follow the tug at the moment of the collision, and was not guilty of any carelessness. .The libelant insists that certain items of loss were improperly disallowed in the court below. As the libelant has not appealed, we cannot notice this contention. The decree below is affirmed.

tI. DULUTH, I. I . . A. aT

00.

CAMPBELL

L

'11. DULUTH,

S. S. & A. Ry. Co.

April 7. 1892.)

(Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

CIRCUIT Co1T&Ts-JURISDICTION-RBSIDBNOB OJ! DBnNDA:NT.

Under Act Cong, March 3.1887, $ 1] as amended by Act Aug. 18, 1888. citizens or SUbjectS of foreign states can sue citIzens of the United States in the federal courts only in the' district in which the latter reside. A corporation is conclusively presumed to be a resident,and inbabita!1t of tbe state'u'IIder whose laws it is created, and an employe, a citizen of a foreign state, cannot maintain an action for damall'es against a railroad in a state other than tha' under wbose laws it was organized, merely because its agents are there found engaged in its business.

.. B.ua:B-CoBPOBATIONS-WUBRB BlJA:JlLE.

At Law. Action by William Campbell against the Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railway Company for damages for personal injuries. Causedisinissed. Statement by' SANBORN, Circuit Judge: The plaintiff, a subject and citizen of the df)winion of Canada, brougM an action at law in the Minnesota district against the defendant, a corporation created and existing ·under the laws of Michigan, to recover damages for injuries received by him at Bagdad, Mich., while operating defendant's trains as a brakeman. It appears from the amended complaint; whioh we permit to be filed in order fully to present the quesplaintiff's counsel desires to raise, that "the defendant owned and operated a railroad running through Bagdad, Mich., and Wisconsin, and into Duluth, Minn., and at Duluth Minn., said defendant maintains a ticket and freight office, with an agent thereat, who makes contracts there for defendant for both passenger and freight business, and defendant transports both passenger and freight so contracted for in its cars both to and from Duluth, from and to its other stations on its line of railway in Wisconsin and Michigan." The summons was served on the defendant's ticket agent at Duluth, and, under the statutes of Minnesota and the decision$ of the courts of that "tate, the service would have been sufficient to have given a state court jurisdiction of the defendant corporation, if the action had been pending in such court. The action comes before us on an order to show cause why the service of summons should not be set aside, and the action dismissed, upon the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the action, because the defendant is not an inhabitant of this district. Larrabee &- Lammo7l8, for plaintiff. W. W. Billson, for defendant. Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and NELSON, District Judge. SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facl8.) The first section of the act of congress of March 3, 1887, (24 St. p. 552,) as amended by the act of 13, 1888, (25 St. p. 433,) defines the jurisdiction of the circuit courts suits .of a civil nature, at law or in equity, originally brought. in those courts. Aside from the restriction aa to the V.50F.no.3-16