262 FEDBEAL EEPOETBB. �contract price and the market price. His losg was $486.78. The evidence on this subject appears in the testimony of Joseph Nixon, at page 67 et seq., and of John F. Kelling, at page 146 et seq. It does not appear that there was any market for coal at New Cumberland, or that the libellant could have done anything to avert or lessen the loss. �The respondents insist that they ought not to be charged with this loss.' But why not ? Upon what just principle can it be thrown upon the libellant ? His loss was neither re- mote, speculative nor uncertain. It was an actual loss, and the direct resuit of the collision. If the rule of indemnity or compensation is to prevail, the damages decreed to the libel- lant should embrace the loss he sustained on his coal. It has been held that the owner of the injured vessel may re- cover for freight lost by reason of the collision. The Atlas, 3 Otto, 307, And in Van Tine v. The Lake, 2 Wall. Jr. 62, there was an allowance for loss of profits to the vessel during the time she was being repaired. Was the libellant's loss on his coal any less direct or certain than sueh loss of profits, or a loss of freight earnings ? I am of opinion that the second item of the libellant's claim is well founded and should be allowed. �Third. But the item as set down in the bill of particulara — "loss on trip, $612.49" — stands on a different footing. This estimate is made by the libellant upon a comparison of the net earnings of the hoat upon a prior and subsequent trip. His opinion as to this supposed loss is no doubt an honest one. But his own witness, J. W. Clarke, in answer to a question as to the probable profits of that trip, said : "It is a pretty hard thing to figure that thing up. If she made a steady trip she wouldn't make very much." Page 187. If it be conceded that such loss of profits would be allowable in a proper case, the claim as here presented, it se.ems to me, is not satisfac- torily established. It rests largely upon mere conjecture. Moreover, after the interruption of llj days, the trip was resumed and completed. �A more reasonable claim set up by the libellant is that for ����
