PEDBBAL BBPOBTBR. �ih'ereforo, be held that the defendants have infringed the first claim of No. 21,734, �In a suit before Judge McKennan the validity of the frwo claims above considered waa isustained ; but, in deciding the case, no written opinion waa given. In a suit in Missouri against Boisselier and Kupferle, involving the said claims and a closet like that of the defendants in these cases, the bill was dismissed, but on what grounds does not appear from the decision of the court. In regard to any supposed effect of the decree in that suit, as a bar in favor of the defendants in these guits, it is sufficient to say that no pro- ceedings in that suit are set up in the answers in these suits. �There must be a decree for the plaintiffs as to the above claims, and for an account of pro&ts and an ascertainment of damages, with costs. ���The C. m. Titus. (District Court, S. B. New York. January 22, 1S81.) Rbpairing Vbssei< — Hypothecating Cargo— Notice to Ownkk op �CABQO— SaLTAGB— COLIUBION. �Where a master aod owner of a canal-boat verbally agreed with the libellant to pump her eut and repair her leakg, having run her aground to avoid ainking, between Fourth and Fifth streeta, Hoboken, where she lay within the Une bf the ends of the piers on a muddy bot- tom, and where she could remain, saf ely two or three days without f ur- ther damage, and eut of the track of other vessels, the cargo consisting of iron, not likely to be injured; and neither of them consulted the shipper or consignee, although the master had two days before con- tracted with the shipper in New York to deliver the cargo at the Del- aware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad dock in Ploboken, and had already reported his arrivai to the consignee ; and the libellant, after partially completing the worls and moving the boat to the Elysian rields, demanded payment of the shipper in New York, but was re- fused, the underwriters claiming that the master acted without authority ; and the libellant then flnished the work of caulking and patching her up, and after procuring from the master a written agree- ment for the services, dated back to the day of his employment, and a written protest before a notary, also antedated, charging the leak- ��� �
