THE JOSEPH NIXON V. THE GEOBGB LYSIiB. 259 �?HB Joseph Nixon v. The Steam-Tug Geoegb Lysle and �owners. �{District Gov/rt, W. B. Pennsylvania. • , 1880.) �Admtralty — CoLUSiON — Damages Allowed. — In consequence of a col- lision between libellant and defendant, caused by the negligence of the defendant, libellant was obliged to put into port for repairs, by reason of ■which she lost 11 }4 days' time in making repairs and waiting for a rise in the river sufBcient to float her tows ; having, by the delay, lost the benefit of the rise existing at the time of collision, ffdd, that the cwner was entitled to recover as damages — (1) The amount of the re- pairs ; (2) the loss sustained by reason of his failure, in consequenca of the collision, to deliver certain coal contracted and in tow ; (3) de- murrage during the time the beat was delayed in undergoing repairs. �In Admiralty. �John H. Barton, for libellants. �John G, MacConnell, for respondents. �AcHBSON, D. J. On the twelfth day of November, 1877, the libellant's steam-tug, the Joseph Nixon, with a tow of 11 pieces — nine thereof being loaded coal barges — was proeeed- ing down the Ohio river on a voyage from Pittsburgh to Cin- cinnati. For several hours during the moming of that day the Joseph Nixon had been closely foUowed by the respond- ents' steam-tug, the George Lysle, which, with a tow of loaded coal barges, was also proceeding on a voyage down the Ohio. At about noon of said day, when the boats had reached a point nearly opposite the town of East Liverpool, in the state of Ohio, the forward end of the tow of the George Lysle coUided with and ran into the wheel of the Joseph Nixon. The day was calm and clear, The Joseph Nixon was in proper place, and was properly navigated immediately before and at the time of the collision, and was plainly in sight of the pilot of the George Lysle. The latter boat gave the former no signal or warning. It was the clear duty of the George Lysle (which was the faster boat) to slacken her speed or adopt precautions to avoid collision. Whitridge v. Dill, 23 How. 448. By the exercise of ordinary care on the ����
