« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
amicable suit in chancery, against us, to which interest in the estate was Mildred Hammond, we will immediately file an answer, and obtain the wife of Thomas Hammond, in whose right an order of reference to the master, to adjust the appellant claims one share of the twentyand report the precise sum to which each leg. third part of the residue. After a previous disatee is entitled; which being done, we can pro- tribution by the executors of $7,000, the amount ceed with safety to pay such sums as fast as arising from further sales, and remaining for the money comes to our hands.
distribution at the commencement of this suit, In 1823, the legatees, in conformity with the was near $120,000. above suggestion, filed a bill in the Circuit Court Several of the residuary legatees became for the District of Columbia, which the exec- purchasers at the sales made by the executors, utors immediately answered, admitting the some for more, others for less than their shares existence of a balance to be distributed, and or parts of shares to which they were entitled. submitting to any decree which the court might They gave securities for the amount of their think proper to pass. A special auditor was purchases, as other purchasers would have been appointed to state the accounts of the parties. required to do, with an understanding that
In 1825, the executors filed a cross-bill, al. their several shares of the estate, when ascerleging that all the parties were not in court, tained, should be credited against the sales reand praying that they might all be brought in. spectively made to them. The proper proceedings were accordingly had Among those legatees who purchased to an as to the absentees, and in 1826 the Circuit amount exceeding their shares was Burdett Court passed a decree directing the sums to be Ashton, who was entitled to one third of one paid to the several legatees, with the exception share in his own right, and to one other third of the administratrix of Thomas Hammond of a share in right of a sister, together equal to and of Burdett Ashton. The auditor stated two thirds of one twenty-third or full share of the account of Hammond upon two different the residuum subject to distribution. This inprinciples; in one, giving him credit for $5,178.- terest of Ashton was subsequently ascertained ER, a distributive share, and charging him with to be $3,425.20. *He purchased property [*19 $4,006.24, the gross amount of the proceeds of in June, 1803, to the amount of $9,410.20, paythe mortgage sale; and bringing the executors able in three annual installments; and for securin debt to Hammond upwards of $4,000; in the ing this debt, with interest from the date, exeother, giving him credit for the same sum, but cuted to the executors a mortgage on the 12th charging him with the balance of the debt due day of March, 1805. by Ashton, bringing him in debt to the exec- Thomas Hammond (the husband of the legutors upwards of $2,000. The Circuit Court atee, Mildred Hammond) obtained from the adopted the latter, and decreed that the ad. executors an assignment of the mortgage from ministratrix of Hammond should pay to the Ashton for the $9, 410.20, and executed to them executors the sum of $2,158.56, with interest an obligation to account for any surplus which on $1,127.27, the principal sum due, from the he might receive from Ashton's mortgage, 1st day of June, 1824.
beyond the share of Mildred Hammond, From which decree, the administratrix ap- amounting to $5,179.50 after crediting Ashton pealed to this court.
with two thirds of a share to which he was enVr. Core for the appellant.
titled. The consideration for the assignment Mr. Jones for the appellees.
to Hammond is stated to be “one dollar in
hand paid, but principally on account” of the 18*) *Mr.Justice DANIEL delivered the opin- share of his wife in the residue of General iod of the court:
Washington's estate; and they bargain, sell, and This is the case of an appeal from a decree assign to the said Hammond, his heirs, &c., all of the Circuit Court of the United States for the right, title, interest, estate, claim, and dethe District of Columbia.
mand of the executors to the within mentioned This suit was originally of an amicable char land and premises, and to the deed within menscter, and was instituted at the request of the tioned. At the foot of the assignment is a executors of General George Washington, by memorandum “that the executors are not to be the legatees under his will, with a view to a personally liable in any respect, or on any predefinitive settlement of the accounts of the exec- tense, for or by reason of the above assignutors and a distribution of the estate. Subse- ment,” and further, “that the within-named quently to its institution, a cross-bill was filed Burdett Ashton, his heirs, &c., shall have credit by the executors for the purpose of covering for his proportion, and for the proportion of some of the legatees, who had been omitted in his sister," in one share of the residuum of the the prior proceedings, and the two causes were estate, &c. . prosecuted and decreed upon as one suit. The Within less than a month after receiving an facts out of which the questions now presented assignment from the executors, Hammond as. for consideration have arisen, are substantially signed Ashton's mortgage to Smith, Buchanan the following:
and Calhoun, in consideration of a debt due General Washington, after having disposed from him to them. These last assignees filed of a portion of his estate, devised all the res their bill in the Supreme Court of Chancery in idne of his real and personal property to be Virginia, to foreclose Ashton's mortgage, and sold by his executors, if it could not be equally to this bill the executors of Washington were and satisfactorily divided, and directed the pro- made parties defendants. In their answer these ceeds to be divided into twenty-three equal executors admit the interests of Hammond and shares, and distributed by shares and parts of Ashton in the estate of their testator, the asshares, amongst twenty-nine persons named, signment by them to Hammond of Ashton's and others not named, but designated by a col mortgage, and they ask nothing on their own lective description. Amongst those having an account except this, that as certain funds of the estate upon the basis of which Ashton's and in the separate instrument of indemnity exproportion had in part been calculated, might ecuted to the executors by Hammond, upon his turn out to be unavailable, he, Ashton, might receiving that assignment. Under such circumbe required to indemnify the executors against stances, what rational inducement could exist such a contingency.
on the part of Hammond for binding himself The settlement of Ashton's account having for the solvency of Ashton, or for substituting been by the Court of Chancery referred to the himself with the executors as a debtor in Ash master, a large balance was reported as due ton's place? The court can perceive no such 20*] *from Ashton on the mortgage, after al. inducement, nor can recognize any right in the lowing him a credit for his own and his sister's executors to require anything of this kind, with shares of a legatee's proportion. The court de- a full knowledge, on their part, of Hammond's creed a foreclosure of the mortgage, and a sale interest in the estate, and with an admitted of the mortgaged premises to raise the balance fund in their hands for its satisfaction. They due from Ashton. The sale made under the had no power to impair in any degree his claim decree produced a sum considerably less than upon them, nor to impose a mean for its paythe amount of the debt from Ashton to the ment, less certain and safe than the assets acexecutors of Washington.
knowledged by them to be adequate. It is laid In the record in this cause are found accounts down by the Circuit Court, and insisted on in stated under orders of the Circuit Court be the argument here, that the terms of the astween the executors of Washington and the signment to Hammond, as well as those of the distributees, under the will of their testator. instrument of indemnity given to the executors In the account of Burdett Ashton, after credit- upon receiving that assignment, constitute an ing him with the proceeds of the mortgage sale, agreement that Hammond should be uncondia balance is struck against him of $6.197.70. tionally bound for Ashton's debt. We have The account with Hammond is stated under shown that this conclusion is in accordance two aspects; under the first, in which he is neither with prudence nor probability, in the charged with the net proceeds only of Ashton's transactions of life-that it was not sustained mortgage, he is a creditor, by the sum of $4,084.- by any duty, or even by fairness on the part of 30; under the second, in which Hammond is the executors; let us see how far it is warranted charged with the entire balance due from by the language of the instruments referred to Ashton, without regard to the actual proceeds as amounting to express and positive contract. of the mortgage, he is made a debtor. The In the written assignment to Hammond, this is Circuit Court, upon the hearing of this cause, the language used: “Have bargained, sold, being of the opinion that Hammond was abso assigned, &c., all the right, title, &c., in and lutely bound to the executors of General Wash to the within-mentioned land and premises, and ington for whatever amount the mortgage debt the deed within mentioned,” &c. Such terms of Ashton exceeded the share of Mrs. Hammond were indispensable in that assignment, in order as a legatee, notwithstanding the failure of the to give to Hammond control of the mortgage, inortgaged premises to produce the amount of either for its enforcement in his own behalf or the debt for which they were pledged; decreed, for its transfer to others nothing is said, in in conformity with the second statement of the terms, in this assignment, about the debt inmaster of Hammond's account (No. 11), that tended *to be secured by the mortgage, *22 the administratrix of Hammond, out of the neither in relation to any full equivalent for it, assets in her hands to be administered, should received by Hammond, which should bind him pay to the executors of George Washington the for it in toto, nor in relation to any entire and sum of $2,158.56, the balance appearing to be absolute transfer of it by the executors; and due to them by statement No. 11, with interest this, surely, was the place in which such terms, on $1,027.27, the principal sum due from the or conditions, if they really belonged to the 1st day of June, 1824.
contract, should have been expressed. The The basis of the above decree of the Circuit view here presented is fortified by the instruCourt, and it is the foundation on which the ment of indemnity executed by Hammond to argument for the appellees has been conducted; the executors contemporaneously with the asis the assumption that Hammond, in taking an signment by the latter to him of Ashton's mortassignment of Ashton's mortgage from the exec- gage. This instrument of indemnity, after reutors of Washington, undertook to guarantee citing that the executors had assigned, &c., a the sufficiency of the mortgage subject to ex. deed due them from Ashton, specifying no tinguish the amount for which that subject was sum, no debt in numeris; after reciting, too, pledged, and bound himself absolutely to be that Ashton was entitled to a portion of the asaccountable for that entire sum.
sets, proceeds thus: “And whereas it is supIt is difficult to reconcile such a course on posed that the amount of the said debt due 21*] the part of Hammond *with rules of from Burdett Ashton, after making the discommon prudence or probability, nor can a counts aforesaid, to which he may be entitled, claim to power in the executors to make such will exceed the said sum of $5,179.50, due to an exaction upon Hammond be viewed as con- the said Thomas Hammond, as agreed; for sistent with fairness, or as called for by any ob- which excess, the said Thomas Hammond is ligation incumbent upon these executors. willing to give security; now, if the said ThomHammond knew, when he took the assignment as Hammond shall well and truly pay, &c., of Ashton's mortgage, that he was entitled to such sum as the debt due from the said Burdett $5,179.50, admitted by the executors to be in Ashton, shall exceed," &c. This portion of the their hands, or within their control. This is instrument, beginning, "whereas it is supposed apparent, and is expressed both in the memo- that the amount of the debt due from Ashton. randum required by the executors to be append after making the discounts to which he is ened to their assignment of Ashton's mortgage, titled," &c. forcibly elucidates the meaning and objects of the parties to that contract. The The certificate of the secretary of the Spanish amount of Hammond's interest in the estate, Governor of Florida is prima facie evidence of the
existence of a grant of land. the amount, too, of Ashton's debt to the execu
The Spanish Governor had authority to issue such tors, and of the portion claimed in his own a grant. right, and in right of his sister, were all known. / In the case of a grant made before the 24th of
January, 1818, it is valid, although the survey was With regard to these, then, there was no un
not made until after that day, provided the survey certainty. The supposition, therefore, ex- was made before the exchange of flags. pressed in this instrument could have no ap
It is not a good objection to such a grant that toe,
metes and bounds were not set forth. plicability to matters thus ascertained; that supposition could have been designed to apply MHE facts in this case are fully set forth in the only to the contingency of the mortgage sub 1 opinion of the court. ject producing a sum greater than the distrib It was submitted by Mr. Legaré, the Attorneyptive share of Hammond in the estate; in which General, without argument, on the usual ob. event, he was to be responsible for the excess, jections assigned, pro forma, for error. and for nothing beyond it. This provision cannot be correctly interpreted as binding Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of Hammond, however inadequate the mortgage the court: subject might prove to meet his share of the This is an appeal from the decree of the assets, to carry into the estate and pay to the Superior Court of East Florida, confirming executors a sum he never had received, and eight thousand acres of land to Domingo Acosta, which, from the nature of things, he could not under the acts of Congress for the adjustment possibly receive; in other words, to pay to of land claims in Florida. 23*] these executors his own *money. Upon The claim is founded on an alleged petition taking an assignment of Ashton's mortgage, of Acosta, dated May 2, 1816, and a decree of Hammond was bound for good faith and ordi. Governor Coppinger thereon, dated the 20th nary diligence in prosecuting it. These obli. day of the same month and year. The petition zations appear to have been fulfilled, for the (record 8) sets forth: That by the certificates executors who were made parties to the suit for which he presented, signed by the commanforeclosure take no exception to anything that dants of Fernandina, who had governed it suchad been done or omitted in reference to the se- cessively since 1808, his Excellency would be curity they had transferred.
informed that he had been a permanent resident This court, therefore, while it will not de- of the said town, engaged all the while in comCree against the executors the difference between merce, and had served (in all that had offered the proceeds of Ashton's mortgage and the dis- itself) the wishes of the government for the tributive share of Hammond, as stated in the re- good of the province; and that he had been port of the master, is very clear that Hammond particularly prompt with his person, his funds, can upon no correct principle be held responsi. and his influence, for the defense, the support, ble to the executors for the difference between and the advancement of the town; and that he those same proceeds and the amount of the had at no time had any stipend, recompense or debt due from Ashton, which the mortgage renumeration, of his expenses, supplies, and was designed to secure; and that in decreeing losses, and had refrained from importuning the against the administratrix of Hammond for government with solicitations. He therefore that difference, the Circuit Court has commit-prayed for a grant, in property, of eight thouted an error for which its decree should be re- sand acres; but as he was ignorant of the lands versed.
| that were vacant, and desirous to avoid interThis court doth accordingly reverse the decree of ference and dissensions with any persons, he the Circuit Court, with costs, and remand this further prayed his Excellency would be pleased cause thereto, to be proceeded in conformably to *to grant them at the places where the [*25 the principles of this decision.
Surveyor-General might survey them as vacant
The decree (record 8) states, that “in vistue This cause came on to be heard on the tran- of the certificates which this party presents, script of the record from the Circuit Court of land it being the will of the sovereign that the the United States for the District of Columbia, merits of his subjects should be rewarded, the holden in and for the County of Alexandria, lands solicited in this instance are granted, and was argued by counsel; on consideration with special charge to the Surveyor-General to whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged and
survey them to him without injury to third decreed by this court, that the decree of the
persons." said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the
The originals of the petition and decree were same is hereby reversed with costs, and that
not produced in evidence, neither are they to this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded
be found in the archives at St. Agustine. A certo the said Circuit Court, with directions to tified copy, dated 24th June, 1816, under the proceed therein conformably to the opinion of hand of Thomas de Aguilar, secretary of the this court.
government, stated to be faithfully drawn from the original in his office, was alone offered, and
was objected to on the part of the appellants. 24] *THE UNITED STATES, Appellants,
| The appellee also offered the following plats
and certificates of survey, purporting to be DOMINGO ACOSTA, Appellee.
made by George J. F. Clark, Surveyor-General
of the province: Spanish Governor of Florida-poroer to grant No. 1. Dated 12th January, 1818, for one
land-certificate evidence of grant-surveys thousand acres of land, on Bowlegs' old plan
made after treaty,valid as to grants made before. I tation, and situated northwardly and contig. HOWARD 1. U. S., Book 11.
uous to the same Bowlegs' Prairie, westward | tee took title to the particular lands; because, up of Payneston.
to this date, all grants made by the King of No. 2. Dated 15th January, 1818, for one Spain, in whatever form, are recognized as valthousand five hundred acres of land, in the id by the article of the treaty. The difficulty hammock catled Jobbin's Hammock, south- in this case is, that two of the surveys were westwardly of the road called Ray's Trail, lead- made after the 24th of January, 1818; and, did ing from the natural bridge of the Santa Fe, to the grant take effect from the date of the surthe point of Alachua called Hogtown.
veys, then, by the stipulations of the 8th article. No. 3. Dated 14th February, 1818, for one *it would be void. This question was *27 thousand five hundred acres of land, northward first presented in Sibbald's case (10 Peters, 321). of Dunn's Creek, running from Dunn's lake to It was thought by this court that the 8th artithe River St. John,
cle of the treaty operated on grants made by No. 4. Dated 20th January, 1820, for four the governor after the 24th of January, 1818, thousand acres of land, on the west side of In- but not on the subordinate acts of the surveyor dian River, and at a place called Flounder in giving effect to the grant; and that surveys Creek.
could be made at any time before the change After hearing testimony as to the manner in of flags between this government and that of which muniments of title were kept in the Spain. Still, had that officer failed to make archives at St. Augustine, the court made a de the surveys, the grant would not be binding on cree confirming the four several tracts of land this government. We followed the case of to the claimant; from which decree the present Sibbald in that of Clarke v. Atkinson, at the appeal is taken.
last term (16 Peters, 231). This construction on the part of the United States it was con- was given to the 8th article of the treaty, in a tended that the said decree ought to be reversed spirit of liberality to this description of claimon the following grounds:
ants, who could not be held justly responsible 1. That there is not sufficient evidence to for the delays of the Surveyor-General; and beshow that Governor Coppinger ever made the cause the incipient claim, by the governor's dealleged concession or grant.
cree, was not cut off by the treaty. The 26*1 *2. That if Governor Coppinger made Surveyor General having executed the governsuch a grant, it was made without authority. or's decree, we are of opinion that the surveys
3. That there is no description whatever in made after the 24th of January, 1818, as well the said pretended grant, of the lands alleged as those made before that date, are valid, That to be granted, and no valid survey could be there are several surveys is no objection to made so as to sever any lands from the public their validity; the decree in this case obviously domain.
so contemplated. 4. That there is no evidence of the surveys. ' 4. It is objected, that no sufficient evidence
The foregoing statement, offered on part of is furnished by the record that the surveys were the United States, presents the facts of the case. made. The cause was first submitted to the and the objections to the decree below.
court below in 1834; then the two surveys In answer to the first, that there is not suffi- last made were objected to and admitted by the cient evidence the grant was made, we refer to court. The judge continued the cause on his the case of Wiggins (14 Peters), which deter- own motion for further proofs, and it stood mines that the official certificates of the secre- over on continuances until 1840, when the tary Aguilar was prima facie proof of the exist- four surveys were read without objection. We ence of the original grant at the date when think the proofs authorized the decree, and orthe copy was made, and of its contents. der that it be affirmed. In this case, Alveraz proves the certificate of
ORDER. the secretary genuine, and that he was in office
This cause came on to be heard on the tranat the date of the certificate. It was in proof that no original could be found in the proper
script of the record from the Superior Court office where it should be on file. This was suf
for the District of East Florida, and was argued ficient to let in a copy; and there being no
by counsel; ou consideration whereof, it is now
here ordered, adjudged and decreed by this proof to contradict, or impair the force of Ag. uilar's certificate, the court below properly
court, that the decree of the said Superior held that the grant had been made by Govern
Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby or Coppinger.
| affirmed, in all respects. To the second objection, it is sufficient to say Cited-5 How., 475. —that the governor, as the king's deputy, was the sole judge of the merits on which the claim is founded, and had undoubted power to re- *JOSEPH W. WALSH. Administrator *28 ward the merits of the grantee; so this court has held in many cases.
of WILLIAM RECTOR, Deceased, 3. Although there is no description of any
0. place where the land granted shall be located,
THE UNITED STATES. in the governor's decree; still it was binding so far as it went. The Surveyor-General was or-MHIS case came up, by writ of error, from dered to survey the lands solicited, on places I the Circuit Court of the United States for vacant, and without injury to third persons. the District of Missouri. The acts of this subordinate officer came in aid On the motion of the Attorney-General, of of the decree; he had the authority conferred counsel for the defendant in error in this cause, to sever the land granted from the public do- the plaintiff in error having been three times main: had he done so before the 24th of Janu: solemnly called by the marshal to come into ary, 1818, then there could be no doubt the gran- I court and prosecute this writ of error and fail.
ing to do so: It is thereupon now here consid- were taken by the plaintiffs, upon which the ered, ordered and adjudged by this court, that case was brought up. this writ of error to the Circuit Court of the Unit! Plaintiffs' first bill of exceptions: ed States for the District of Missouri be, and the In the progress of this cause, the plaintiffs same is hereby dismissed.
| having offered evidence to prove that on the 15th of February, 1838, the bark Tasso, the property of defendant, in coming out of the
dock at Liverpool, on her way to sea in the WALTER SMITH, JOHN CARTER, prosecution of her homeward voyage to the
United States, ran foul of and occasioned damWILLIAM S. NICHOLLS, ET AL., Survi-age to the Francis Depau, a ship belonging to vors of CLEMENT SMITH, Deceased, Plaintiffs plaintiffs, and inflicted damage and injury upin Error,
on the vessel of the said plaintiffs; and having
further given evidence tending to prove that DENNIS CONDRY.
said collision was the result of unskillful man
agement on the part of the Tasso. Collixion in
The defendant gave in evidence the statutes English porl-rights of parties de
of 37 Geo. III., ch. 78; 52 Geo. III., ch. 39, termined by English statutes—interpretation
and 6 Geo. IV., ch. 125; and further proved of-measure of damages-evidence.
that there was on board the Tasso, at the time When a collision of vessels occurs in an English
of her moving from the dock and until after port, the rights of the parties depend upon the said collision, a regularly licensed pilot of said provisions of the British statutes then in force; port of Liverpool; that the said vessel was unand if doubts exist as to their true construction,
der the management and direction of said pilot, this court will adopt that which is sanctioned by their own courts.
and that the directions and orders of said pilot By the English statutes as interpreted in their were followed and obeyed on board said vessel, courts, the master or owner of a vessel, trading to or from the port of Liverpool, is not answerable for damages occasioned by the fault of the on board her during the time of her moving pilot.
from said dock into the river; and that such The actual damage sustained by the party at the
absence of the master was usual and customary time and place of injury, and not probable profits at the port of destination, ought to be the meas
on such occasions. ure of value in damages, in cases of collision as The defendant, upon said evidence, prayed well as in cases of insurance.
the court to instruct the jury, that by the true By whose fault the accident happened, is a question of fact for the jury, to be decided by them
construction of the statutes of Great Britain upon the whole of the evidence.
(37 Geo. III., ch. 78; 52 Geo. III., ch. 39, and
the 6 Geo. IV., ch. 125), produced on the trial, THIS came up, by writ of error, from the Cir- the defendant is not responsible to the plaintI cuit Court of the United States, for the Dis- iffs in this action for any damage occasioned trict of Columbia, and was argued at January by the default, negligence, or unskillfulness of Term, 1842. The court held it under a curia the pilot proved to have been on board the Tasadcisare oult, and pronounced their decision at so; which opinion the court gave as prayed, to the present term.
which the plaintiffs, by their counsel, excepted. The facts in the case were these:
*Plaintiffs' second bill of exceptions: (*30 The plaintiffs in error, who were also plaint. In the trial of this cause the plaintiffs proifts in the court below, were the owners of a duced a competent witness, and offered to prove 29*) vessel called the Francis Depau, *which that the ship of the plaintiff, mentioned in the was lying in the port of Liverpool, on the 15th declaration, at the time of the injury complained of February, 1838, loaded and ready for sea. of, was loaded with salt and ready to sail for The bark Tasso, owned by the defendant, in the Georgetown market, and that if the ship coming out of the docks, ran foul of the Fran- had then sailed she would in due course have cis Depau and occasioned considerable damage. arrived in Georgetown (as was intended when A suit was brought in consequence, and upon her lading was taken in) in due time for the the trial the verdict of the jury was for the de- sale of the cargo at the fishing season of the fendant. The following bills of exception | Potomac River, when there is a great demand
NOTE.-Collision-measure of damages for.
in market-not at forced sale. The Colorado, 1 The general rule is that in cases of collision, Brown Adm., 411; McClosky v. The Achilles, 4 which is not willful, the owner of the injured ves Law & Eq. Reporter, 676. sel is entitled to receive as damages an amount And it is proper to allow the cost of raising the which will place him in the situation in which he sunken vessel lo ascertain the extent of the loss. would have been but for the collision. Insurance The Mary Eveline, 14 Blatchf., 497. is not to be deducted. The Rhode Island, Abb. But where she is injured, the measure of damages Adm., 100; Williamson v. Barrett, 13 How., 101; is the sum necessary to restore the vessel to as good Af'x S. C., 4 McLean, 589; The Baltimore, 8 Wall., condition as she was at the time of the injury. The 377; New Eng. Mar. Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 3 Cliff., 332, Catharine v. Dickinson, 17 How., 170; The Granite
Actual injuries only are to be compensated. Hy- State, 3 Wall., 310, and cases cited supra. pothetical or consequential damages are not con- Loss of use of the vessel while making repairs, sidered. The Blossom, Olcott, 188: The Narragan- the freight a vessel was earning less expenses, the sett, Olcott, 246.
damage done to a vessel in saving her, the salvage But the owner is entitled to recover his entire and other necessary expenses paid in rescuing the loss. The Narragansett, Olcott, 246; The New Jer vessel from the perils of the collision, wharfage wy, Olcott, 414.
while repairing, cost of raising and clearing the Where the vessel is lost by a collision the measure vessel, loss of profits while it was sunk, demurrage of damages is the full value of the vessel and of for time vessel is repairing, the value of the use of her freight. The Ann Caroline, 2 Wall., 538; The the vessel while laid up for repairs, are all items of Rebecca, Blatchf. & H., 847; The New Jersey, Ol- damage that have been allowed in addition to the cott, 444; Tbe America, 11 Blatchf., 285.
actual cost of repairs. Williamson v. Barrett, 13 What she would have brought at an ordinary sale | How., 101 ; Af'g S. C., 4 McLean, 589; The Narra