350
;' , "
REI'ORTER.
BACKUS WATER MOTOR
Co.
V. TUERK'
arid others.
(Cu'cuit Court, N. D. Illinois. '1. PATE"'TS FeiR
July 10,1833.)
The pocket device shown in thG sixth claim of reissued patent No, 5,5no, dated October 7, 1873, granted to Isaac assignor of O. J. Backus, tor alt "impr07ement in eomLinea water·wheels and sewingcmachines," (original patent having heen ismed Septemb3r 24, 1872, No. 1;)1,616,) is void for want of novelty, having been clear,y shown in the provisional specifications of James Pilbrow for English letters patent in 1857. 2. S.nm-\VATEH
The firs' claim in 1l:tters patent No. 146,120, dated January 6, IS74, issued to O..J. l'ac:kus for an "improvement in water motors," is void for want of novelty, and thc 3ccond thei'cin nude is not infringed hy the Tuerk water motors, .claimed to be an iniring',ll1ent of. tIle Backus patents.
1\IO'1'01:S.
In Equity. lIIun.90n J: Phillip, for complainant. P. C. Drycf(jo'rth, for detendants. BLODGETT, J. This is a bill to restrain the alleged infringement of reissued letters Intent No. 5,5\)0, dated October 7, 187:1, to Isaac Hyde, assignor of O. J. Backus, for an "improvement in combined water-wheels and sewing-machines," the original patent having been issued September 24,1872, No. 131,616, and of patent No. 146,120, dated January 6, 1874, iSHued to O. J. Backus, for an "improvement in water motors." The defendants are charged with the infringement of the sixth claim of the reissued Hyde patent, and of the first and second claims of the Backus patent.· Thedeftllses set up areFirst, that the patents in question are void for want of novelty; second, that the reissued Hyde patent is void, by reason of its describing a different invention from that contained in the original patent; and, third, that the defendants do not infringe. The sixth claim of the Hyde patent is as follows: "A vertically revolving water-wheel, in combination wi'th an inclosing case, which has a projecting spent-water pocket,D, to prevent the spent water 1rom acting on the wheels, substantially as The drawings and model of the Hyde patcnt show an downward of tho wileel-casing, so as to give room for the escape of the spent "ater, without' its huddling or utberwise l'crading the motion of the wheel; and this feature of the Hyde device is specifically covered by the sixth claim of tbe reissued patent, it not baving bemi claimed in any ,form in the original patent; 'rhe defendants manufacture a water 'motor, the wheel of which is inclosed in a metal case, in oue form of which there is· an elongation of the case downward, so as to give room for the free escape of the 8p"nt water. Their other 'form of wheelcase is nearly circular. TJ.;e wheel, however, in the circular case is set eccentrically to tlle center of the case, so that a larger space is left below the wheel than above it, and from thi8 larger space tha
BACKUS' WATER MOTOR CO. V. TUERK.
.IS;:; 1
spent escapes freely throllghan opening in the bottom of the case. It is obvious that any person entering upon the construction of a water-wheel inclosed in a case like either of these devices must make some ample provision for the escape of the spent water in such a way that it will not clog or impede the motion of the wheel; and the most natural way 'would be to provide a space for the escape of tho spent water at the bottom of the wheel, afh)r the water had performed its function as an impelling power. It would hardly seem to require invention to leave space enough in this case below the wheel to a!low the water to escape freely, so as not to with the action of the wheel; and this was what Hyde did, and what he assumed to cover by what he calls his spent-water pocket in the sixth claim of the reissued patent. It is not necessary, perhaps, to sa,y, in disposing of this case, whether a claim of this character, if Hyde had been the first to use such a device as a spent-water pocket, would be valid as coming within the field of invention or not, beca.use I find in the proof sufficient evidence to satisfy me that the pocket device shown in the Hyde patent is old. It is clearly shown in the provisional specifications of James Pilbrow, in evidence in this case, for English letters patent, produced from the files of the United States patent-office, dated in 1857. brow's patent was for a water motor in principle the same as the Hyde patent, which he doscribed in his own language, as follows: "This wheel is inclosed in a metal case, having an outlet at F. This case may be supported in any way found most convenient for its practicable application by supports or bearers of wood. Into this case will project the nozzle of a pipe having a cock upon it. This nozzle being pointed tangentially to the wheel, as shown, and being connected with a water-main or pipe, when the water is under high pressure, and the cock being open, the jet of water issues into the cavities of the wheel, urging it around in the direction of the arrows, and the waste or expended water escapes by F," which is the escapepipe located in the corner of the case opposite the inlet-pipe. The drawings attached to this specification show a wheel-caging with a wheel revolving therein, with an induction-pipe located so that the jet of waterstrikes the buckets at the lower side of the wheel, and the water-pocket or escape at the corner of the case opposite the injection-pipe. This wheel is located eccentrically in the case, so that the upper part of the wheel revolves near the top of the case, leaving a much larger space below the bottom of the wheel, and in form of construction is very similar in principle to that adopted by the defendant's second form of wheel. 'With this device known to the art, to say nothing of the variouS other devices which are shown by the proof in regard to the construction of water-meters and casings for water-wheels, where the same principle is to some extent shown, it seems to me there was, and could be, no invention in mak.
352
FEDERAL REPORTER.
ing the Hyde water-pocket as an alm'lst necessary adjunct to the sue· cessful operation of any water motor, operated upon the principle involved in his device. TI:e pocket was old, and hence unpatent· able. The defendants are charged with inft-inging the first and second claims of the Backus patent of January 0, 1874. These claims read as follows: "(1) The single casing-plate, A, having an induction nozzle and wastewater pocket and a discharge formed thereon, substantially as and for the purpose described. (2) The 'allllUlar chamber, 1\I, between the plates,· A l'.nd K, s 1rroundillg the elungated I.Jcanngs for the wheel-shaft, U, sul.Jstan· tially as uescribeu."
In other words, Dacknq, in his fimt claim, seeks to cover the idea of making a casing for his wheel of two pl:ttes, in one of which plates was cast the opening for the induction and escape pipes. It seems to me that if any mechanic had been directed to make a wheel-case of two pbtes, which should contain openings for the intluction and escape pipes, he would have found it almost a necessity to cast the openll1gs upon one of the plates; and I think there is no invention whatever involved in the idea of casting these openings upon one plate, instead of casting half, or a portion, in one, and the other part in the ot.uer. As to the second claim in the Backus patent, it is sufficient to say that I do not find in the defendant's wheel-case the part covered by this claim. It is true, the Tuerk casing contains an elongated bearing for the support of the wheel-shaft, but it does not contain the annular chamber, M, which is specifically covered by this claim; thnt is, a chamber or space overhung by the eyebrows, D, for the purpose of preventing the water, which dripped or followed along the iuner surface of the plates, from running out along the journals. The defendant's axle-bearing is elongated from the surface of the casing hath inwardly and outwardly, projecting into the annular space, and there is no equivalent for the e,Yebrows, D, in connection with annular chamber. The original Hyde wheel showed th inlet-pipe upon the top of the casing, so that the jet of water would enter at the top of the wheel, and acted, or was expected to act, partly by impact and partly, perhaps, by the gravity of the water, as it was carried in the bnckcts around from the point where it was received by the wbeel. The water passing in at the top of the wheel, there was, perhaps, some occasion for making provision to prevent the drip of the wuter tlJrough the opening for the journals. In practical application, however, of the principles of the Hyde motor, at! shown in the drawings of the Backus patent, the jet of water was int.roduced near the bottom of the wheel, and it is undoubtedly, from the construction of the wheel, expected that the wheel will be substantirtlly clear of the water by the time the buckets have passed the lowest point in the periphery of the wheel. It maybe, however, that it was still deemed beiSt to mak.e some provision for pre'lenting the
853 water, which might drip down the sides of the caslnci, from flowing out through the journals of the wheel. Whatever may have been the purpose of the inventor, it is clear that Backus made a specific provision for this annular chamber, which he supposed would perform a certain function in his machine. The defendant may be said to have an annular chamber, but I do not find it to be the same annular chamber that is described in the Backus patent, and I therefore find that there is no infringement of the second claim of this patent. I am, therefore, satisfied that this bill should be dismissed for want of equity: Pirst, because the water-pocket of .the Hyde patent is old, and even if it were not old, I should doubt its patentability; and, secondly, because the first claim of the Backus patent does not involve invention, and is not worthy of being- the subject-matter of a patent; and, thirdly, because the defendant does not infringe the second chim of the Backus patent.
i THE MARY
E.
DANA.
tDis5i'ict Uourt, E. D. Virginia. SALVAGE SERvrCE-MEASUIlE OF AWARD.
22, 1882.) r",: __ · _ r
..........r-_._. "'-,- ...;;': .
A brig loaded with lumber i" water-logged off Ocracoke inlet, in January, 1882, and telegraphs for a public vessel of the United States revenue service. The libelant hears in Norfolk of her tiring signals of distress, and sends a strong wrecking steamer, with pump and all wrecking material on board, 157 miles, to her relIef. This tug and the revenue cutter both arrive, and the brig engages the tug, chiefly because she needs such a pump and engine as one on board the tug, which can be got nowhere else between Norfolk and Charleston, and which is necessary to her reaching port. The brig is taken in tow by the tug on a Saturday, anti is towed to Norfolk in rough sea and weather, though there were no dangerous storms; but, owing to a deficiency of coal on the tug, they have to lie by during head winds for 50 hours out of 00, und do not reach Norfolk uutil 'Vednesday night.,-the brig all the while having had the libelant's pump and engine on board, and 'in necess,lry use. The value of all property saved was $4,300. A libel being filed for salvage, and $1,000 deposited by way of lender hy the respondcnt,Held. that that amount. must he allowpd, hut the court stated that a less amount would have been granted if there had been no deposit. Held,further, that as every salvagp award consists (1) of the compensfltion due for the lauor and materal actually expended hy the salvor, and (2) of the boun(1f allowed for enterprise, ri-k. and snccess in the service, this latter ingredient should he larger for salvage services on the long and dangerous sea-hoard stretching from the Delaware capes to Key 'Vest, than on other coasts; especially in cases like the present, where the salvor went 157 miles a dangerous coast, in rough winter weather, to the rescue of a vessel in distress.
In Admiralty.
The brig Mary E. Dana, from St. Simon's Mills, Georgia, bound
for New York, loaded with 100,000 feet of lumber, when about 50 miles E. N. E. off Cape Lookout, sprang a leak in a gale of wind, \.17,no.4-23
and at 9 P. M. o{ Tuesday night, the seventeenth of January, ISS, was leaking so badly that her master, Capt. Benson, found it necessary to make for 'land. The gale abated on Wednesday morning, and on Thursday morning, the 19th, the brig had anchored off Ocra/:loke inlet. ' She lay easy all that day and night, and the captain having, with his crew, gone ashore, telegraphed to Washington, North Carolina, at the life-saving, station at Ocracoke inlet, asking that the United States revenue cutter Colfax might come to his assistance. Capt. Benson and his crew, on going ashore, took with them their most valuable personal effects. The brig was water-logged, and drew 12 ,feet forward and 13 feet aft. Her deck was out of water, and, being filled with lumber tightly stored, there was no danger, or very little danger, of her: being foundered or broken up. There was also a telegram sent by some one to the Baker Wrecking Company, in Norfolk, to the effect that a brig was anchored off that inlet, showing signals of distress. This telegram arrived in Norfolk between 9 and 10 P. III., Thursday night, the 19th; and the Victoria J. Peed, a very strong wrecking steamer arid tug-boat, of 132 tons, worth $25,000, having on board wrecking material worth $6,000, set out for the place where the Dana lay, at ltbout 11 P. 1II. that night, under command of Capt. Orrin S. Baker. with five or six other seamen on board. The Peed reached the brig at about 7 :30 P. III., Friday night, the 20th, having gone a distance of 158 milesfrom 'Norfolk. Having found by inquiry on board that the brig needed and desired assistance, the Peed anchored at a short distance until the morning. At 4 :30 next morning the Colfax arrived. Early on this morning (Saturday, the 21st) Capt. Benson, of the brig, was in conference ,with the mastf)r of the Colfax, the master of the Peed, and Capt. Sol Dickson, a pilot on that coast. The question for him was whether he should put his vessel in charge of the Colfax to be towed to New Berne or Beaufort, or into the sound through Ocracoke inlet, piloted by Capt. Dickson; or whether he should put· himself in charge of the Peed. The brig needed,to be pumped out, and the, Colfax bad no sufficient engine and pump. There was no such pumping engine on the coast, south of Norfolk, except those of the Baker Wrecking Company, one of which was on the Peed ready for use. There were 12 feet of water on Ocracoke bar, and Capt. Dickson thought the brig could be taken ill on high tide without much risk. The brig was not in the danger in which water-logged vessels generally are, from the fact of being loaded with lumber tightly stowed in the hold. 11 kept pumped out, could proceed under sail. The fact that her captain did ,not get hImself towed inside the bar, through Ocracoke inlet, by the Colfax, would seem to argue that he was not in a desperate or very dangerous condition. It would seem that two considerations moved Capt. Benson to engage with Capt. J3aker and the Peed: (1) That he thereby ?ecured at once the use of a pnmp; (2) that in goillg Baker mto Norfolk he would be proceeding towill"ds his port_of ,destination.
;He accordingly put,himseH.inchargeof Capt. Baker, and the engine ,and pump were put upon the brig on the morning of Saturday, the . twenty-first of January, and the pump was got to working after some .delayproduced by the difficulty of. getting the suction 119se through ,the deck and .down through the lumber to the keelson of the vessel; ,say at 2 P. ill. The pump was found to be very efficient, and was able, during the trip to Norfolk, to keep the water d.own by pumping one-fourth the time. By 3 P. M. the water was reduced SOllie two feet in the hold, and the vessel's.draught in the water lightened about one foot. At that hour she was taken in tow by the Peed. A breeze had sprung up from the southward, which increased as the two vessels proceeded towar<:ls Hatteras; growing squally, and rain .coming on about 5 P. il1., and the wind increasing into a gale by 12 P. M. The, wind, however, was favorable, and the brig had some of her sails set. They were moving very rapidly in a trongh of the sea, ,and by 10. P. M. \vere heading easterly. This strong wind from the southward would' have obstructed and endangered the brig if she had gone in tow of the Colfax in the direction of Beaufort. 'rhe vessels ·made considerable headway until 8 A.ilI. on the morning of Sunday, the 22d, anc\ got 'past Cape .Hatteras; but .by 9 A. u. the wind had changed and was ahead, blowing very hard until (; P. u. of the sallie ,day; the distance gained in the last nine hours being only 10 miles. ,At dark, on Sunday evening, they were north of Hatteras' and about :8 miles south of Body island, off Chicamieomico. Here they anchored, having in this first mm'ement consumed 25 hours. Here both vessels anchOl'ed, each with one anchor; the Peed-taking in her hawser, and laying off about a mile from·the brig. . Owing to the head-winds, the two vessels layoff Chicamicomico all Sunday night, and on Monday till 3 P. at whidl hour the Peed again took the brig in tow and proceeded up the beach. During this anchoring the wind had not 'been strong enough to cause the brig to drag her anchor, but hall been "stroilg enor:gh to cause the Peed to draw" hers, which was a ligbt one, until she put down her heavy anchor. It was during this interval, say about 10 A.:U-. on that Capt. Baker went along-3ide the brig and informed her that hew-auld have to be careful of his coal, as -he was short of iL The two Tessels having got under way the second .time, on )Ionday,at 3 P. M., proceeded up the beach 'Ivith tn0 'Ivind blowing from north and west. The w:nd increased during the night, rind after mic.llightblew hard .. About 4: A. :II: Tuesday, the 24th, it ,had got so that the vessels were making no headway, and the -brig wasdireeted 'to let go her hawser and to anchor. Capt. Be'nson objeete'dstrongly, but complied with the order and came to anchor; putting dov.-nbut oneallchor. The Peed moved off under steam until she got in the bawsif, arid then; without' putting out her aliC:!lOr,stood off under .t staysail and a slow action of her engine and screw for about four hOllrs,wnen &he ;returned to the vicinity of the brig; whicll was betr;ecll T and 8 7
356
FEDERAL BEPORTE&
A.. M., Tuesday, the 24th. In this second movement, which lasted about 13 hours, the vessels had gone from off Chicamicomico to a point off Oregon inlet and Wash Woods, or False cape. Capt. Baker had no intention of abandoning the brig on the morning of Tuesday, the 24th, when she anchored at this latter point. The wind blew heavy, and the two vessels lay at anchor all day Tuesday, and all the following night, during which time the wind was too much ahead and too heavy to afford the hope that any progress could be made with a limited supply of coal. The wind became favorable early on Wednesday morning, the 25th, and the vessels proceeded to take in their anchors; but the brig was delayed in getting hers up, and lost it by the parting of her anchor chain. They got away from False cape about 9 A. M. on Wednesday, passed Cape Henry about 12 M., and arrived in the port at Norfolk about 5 P. M. that day,-four days and four nighte from Ocracoke. The trip seems to have been prolonged by a deficiency of coal. The capacity of the coal-bunkers of the Peed is 35 The daily consumption is six tons. She left Norfolk without filling her bunkers. Capt. Baker says she had f('ur and one-half days' supply when she left; that is to say, about 25 tons. The engineer, Sutton, says she had enough coal for the trip; within three or four tons of her full supply, which would be about 30 tons. The first mate, Johnson, says she took no coal on before leaving Norfolk, and had within four or five tons of her full supply. Th(' second engineer, Corprew, says she had 21 or 22 tons. Capt. Benson, of the brig, says that at Ocracoke, on the morning of the 21st, the mate and the master, Johnson and Capt. Baker, both asked him about coal, and told him that they did not have enough. The PeeJ consumed some six tons on the way to Ocracoke, and her officers say they put two to two and a half tons on the brig at Ocracoke, to be nsed in the donkey engine. It is not probable, therefore, that the Peed had much more than 15 to 17 tons when she set out from Ocracoke all Saturday in charge of the brig. Much economy was used on the trip to Norfolk; and on arrival there the coal on board was only about three-quarters of a ton. While nnder way the first time they were in motion 25 hours; during the next time they wore under way they were moving 13 hours; and on Wednesday' the last day of the trip, they were in motion eight hours. All this made 46 hours; and so there could not have been consumed more than two days' supply; say 12 or 15 tons of coal. It would seem pretty clear, therefore, as before suggested, that when the Peed first took the brig in tow she had not more than some 16 tons of coal, and that she would have been short of coal if she had not stopped on several occasions, and laid by, when the wind was ahead This deficiency of coal, however, does not signify much III thIS case, especially as Capt. Benson admits in his t.estimony that both Capt. Baker and Mate Johnson informed him at Ocracoke that the Peed was short of coal. engaged her with knowledge of the
THE MARY E. DANA.
357
fact. As to the weather, there was no storm to endanger either vessel, though both wind and sea were in general rough. Capt. Benson says that the fire in the donkey engine, the door of which was 14: inches above the deck of the brig, was at no time put out by the sea coming over his deck. The brig lay at anchor during the roughest weather, and at no time had down more than one anchor, and at no time dragged that anchor. Capt. Benson says his vessel could have carried his topgallant-sails at any period of the trip. Towing off that coast by such a tug as the Peed is worth $200 a day. Such a pump as hers is worth $25 a day. The value oj the brig was $3,000, and that of her cargo $1,300; the whole value saved, therefore, being $4:,300. The value of the property risked by the wreckers was, as before stated, $31,000. The claim of libelants is for one-half the valne of the property saved. Respondents have deposited in court as a tender $1,000, together with costs up to the date of tender, to-wit, $36.87. Ellis &: Thorn, for libelant. Sharp &: Hughes, for respondent. HUGHES, J. In this case the questions are, was this B meritorious salvage service? and, if so, what ought to be awarded to the salvors by the court? The amonnt of salvage to be accorded in any case depends upon the following considerations: (1) The degree of danger from which the lives or property are rescued; (2) the value of the property saved; (3) the risk incurred by the salvors; (4) the value of the property employed by the salvors in the wrecking enterprise, and the danger to which it was exposed; (5) the skill shown in rendering the service; (6) the time and labor occupied.
Estimated by these considerations the case at bar does not, in its facts, present a claim of high grade. The reported decisions of the admiralty courts do not justify a large award in the way of boullty for such a service as was rendered here. See The Albion, Lush. 282 ; The Corolllandel, Swab. 205; The Cleopatra, 3 Prob. Div. 14:5; The Senator, Brown, Adm. 372; The Rebecca Clyde, 5 Ben. 98; 2 Parsons, Shipp. & Adm. 293, and cases cited in them. The vessel saved, though in much danger, was not in extreme peril. 'frue, she had been water-logged; but. being loaded tightly with lumber, she was simply reduced to the condition of a raft; but of a raft having a keel, a rudder, masts, and sails, and capable of moving without help, especially if relieved by a pump; and of saving itself, if there shoulcl be no violent storm. No such storm did, in fact, come on for four or more days; and so her escape from wreck would have been secured if only she could have got the use of a pump, and of a donkey engine with which to operate it. This is enough to say as to the condition of the brig. As to the salvage service, I will premise that I feel at liberty to give a larger award in the present case than the admiralty courts usually allow in suits of like character, ior several reasons, which I
,::'58
"FEDERAL REPORTER.
will state: Salvage services rendered on the long and dangerous coast which stretches from the Delaware capes to Florida ought to' be more liberally rewarded. than on other coasts. It is not & seaboard studded with harbors and prosperous commercial cities and towns, from which salvors may run oue short distances along shore and render successful services in a few hours. It is a long coast, "dangerous and barren, constantly swept by strong winds and currents, ·where the ordinary tide varies only three feet, and on which wreck,ingenterprises cannot be successfully accomplished by individual exertion and capital. Wrecking service here can only be success"fnlly performed by organized capital, enterprise, and skill,-by capital, skill, and enterprise so organized as to be capable of maintaininga constant provision of experienced mariners, powerful wrecking vessels, Hnd ample wrecking implements and material, ready at all h011rs for immed·iate service. The business cannot sustain itself in the hands of reputable men and companies unless the admiralty courts shall give exceptionably liberal rewards in all cases of meritorious and successful service on this seaboard. And surely it is in the interest of commerce to sustain the wrecking business in these waters and latitudes. For these reasons, I repeat, salvors on this coast must be more liberally dealt with by the admiralty courts than on other coasts. The salvage service which was renrlered in the present case, though ·not of any unusual difficulty and risk, was yet highly meritorious. 1. The promptitute with which the Peed was sent out 150 mi!.Bs along a dangerous coa£t to the succor of a vessel in distress, deserves marked recognition. 2..The disproportionate excess in value of the property placed at risk by the salvors, compared with that of the property saved, deserves oonsideration. 3. The excellence of the vessel sent out; and of the wrecking material, including the engine and pump on board of her; and the skill and worth of the officer in command, and of the men under him,are to be recognized by the court. 4. That the Peed had not on a full supply of coal, does not affect the merit of the service; the fact that she went out without staying long enough to complete her already good supply of coal is rather an ·element of merit than otherwise; for delay in such a case might be fatal. The deficiency of coal, therefore, only affects the quantwn mel'uit, by diminishing the time to be computed for the towage.service. For the several reasons which have been thus stated, I feel justified in granting a more liberal reward in the present case than would seem to be warranted by the general current of decisions in sah-age suits. But, obviously, I am not at liberty to disregard too far the average teaching of the precedents. I must at least keep in sight of .land. 5. I am the more emboldened to such a course in this particular
TUE EGYPT.'
359
caseof the fact that the respondent macie 'a, deposit in the nature a tender in the suit, of an amount as great as I could, on the most liberal principles, allow. ' The awad III salvage causes consists generally of two ingredientf" viz. First, the quantulIL meruit, which is auertain qnantity to be paid in any event if the saved property will yield it; and, second, the bounty,which is ,\ variable element, depending upon the accidental circumstances of each case. In the present case I think·1 ought to give in payment of services according to their actual worth, viz. : For 48 hours, or two days of actual towing, at $200 a day, $400 00 For 4 days' hire of pnmp and E'ngi:lE', at 825, ' 100 00 .For 1 day of the Peed in going out from Norfolk to Ocracoke, ,. 100 00 And J think that I ought to giveFor bounty, -. 400 00 Total, ;. $1,000 00 I would not give so large a bounty as is allowed in the last item, but for the fact that the respondent has presumedly conceded it was due by his tender. In the Sa1ldringham Case, where the vessel saved was in extreme peril; where tile property of the salvors was in considerable risk for a week; and where there was a week of servicehard service-during two storms, I awarded a fourth. Here, where all the conditions were such as to make a case of far inferior merit, I award nearly a fourth. I excuse the apparent discrepancy almost exclusively on t11e ground that in this case there was a tender, which, in some degree, operates as an estoppel. Else I would not have allowed more than $200 or $250 for The amount of $1,000 having been deposited by way of tender by the respondent, and also the sum of $36.87a8 the costs of the suit accrued up to the time of the deposit, the respondent must let' the latter amount remain, and the rest of the costs must be paid by the libelant out of the fund in court. See l'he Egypt, infra.
THE EGYPT.
(District Court, E. D. Virginia. 1. SAL,AGE-IxcoTIrOTIATED SAL'AGE CO)IPAXY.
July 2,1883.)
An incorporated company, organized for the purpose ot engaging in the meritorious work of saYing ships in distres.s, and dC\'oting thcmselves dll'gently to that pursuit, may lJe granted salvage award as HlJeraHy as natural ' perso:ls so