THE SILTAN QIjBN. SS'ff �advised of the circumstances rendering the delirery oi the wheelbar- rows a matter of urgency. These daniages olaimed are consequential. Without notice of urgency and Special coiitract the' measure of dam- ages, for delay in delivery of goods shipped by a commoh carrier, is the difference in the market value at the time of the delivery and the time when the goods should have been delivered. See Desty, Adm., § 266. As to any such difference in value there is no evidence, �The libel was properly dismissed in the district court, and the same decree will be entered in this court. ���The SiiiVAN Glen, etc. �{Datriet Court, E. D. New York. Octob'er 4, 1881.) �1. Admtraltt — AOTB Oausino Dbath — Action m Kkm foe Damages — Lms �DMDEB THE STATUTE OF NeW YoRK. i ' �A row-boat containing two men and a woman, which, was crossing thes East river at New York just at dusk, was struck and capsized by a steam-boat pf a regular line plying to Harlem, and While the men were saved the woihan Was drowned. An action in rem, for damages being- brought by the husband of laie deceased woman as administrator, Aeici, that the statu te of the state of jNew York created no maritime lien for such damages, i^nd no right of action to the libellant arose therefrom. �W. W. Goodrich, for libellant. �B. D. BenedictyloT (Aa,ivu.aa.i,, �Benbdict, D. J. This action is brougjit by John .We|sh, admin.^ istrator of , Margaret Welsh, deceased, to recover, for the benefit oi himself and the next of kin of Margaret Welsh, the damages sus- tained by hiin and such next of kin by reason of the death of said Margaret Welsh, which death, it is averred, was caused by the negli- gence of those in charge of the steam-boat 3ylvan Glen, inruiining over a small beat wherein the deceased was being transported upon the East river. �It is supposed by the libellant that the determination of the case depends upon the question of fact wliethCir the death in question was caused by negligence on the part of those navigating the steam-boat; but there lies at the threshold of the case a question of law, which, as I view it, is decisive of the controversy. The right of action set up in the libel is derived from a statute of thie state of New York which provides that — �"Whenever the death of a persoh shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default, and the aet', neglect, or defaiilt is such as would, if death had ^iot ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recoVier damages in respect thereof, then and -in every sueh case the persoti who!, or ��� �
