The Morning Star. the said Crescent City had four barges in tow,-three loaded with hay, and one with coal,-which were being taken to Memphis to be delivered to the United States Government there." From this language, I rather infer that these barges with their contents were the property of the Government; and, if So, I think it clear that the libellant can not recover for their detention. Therefore, I shall allow nothing for the detention of the barges. As to the detention of the Crescent City for necessary repairs, I have no hesitation in allowing damages. To determine how much ought to be allowed for this is, however, a little difficult. On this point there are but two witnesses, Capt. Bush, and the pilot, Brashier, and they differ both as to charter value per day and the time of the detention. As to the value per day, Bush puts it at one hundred and twenty-five dollars, and Brashier at one hundred. They appear to be equally competent to judge of that question. Under such circumstances, I deem it best to follow Lord Bacon's rule, namely, that, in a question of doubt as to value, the lowest sum shall be taken. I shall therefore allow one hundred dollars per day for the time of detention. Touching the time during which the boat was necessarily detained for repairs, Bush says it was thirty days, and Brashier swears it was about twenty. Bush superintended the repairs every day but one, and kept the accounts, and paid the bills; and being captain of the boat, he would be more likely to know the exact time than the pilot Brashier. I think, therefore, he is the more reliable witness as to the time, and I shall follow him on this point, and allow for thirty days' detention for necessary repairs. Then, the amount of damages for the detention, to effect the necessary repairs, will be three thousand dollars. On this sum I will allow interest from the 31st of October, 1864, to this day, two hundred and seventy-one dollars and fifty cents. As to the expense of repairs, including work, materials, loss of time and boarding of crew, &c., Capt. Bush, who kept The Morning Star. the account and paid out these expenses, is the only witness. He gives the various items in his deposition, and being uncontradicted, and apparently fair, I allow them as they stand on his testimony, at thirty-seven hundred and seven dollars and twenty-six cents. On this sum I allow interest from December 1, 1864, to this day, three hundred and sixteen dollars and forty-four cents. The aggregate is seven thousand two hundred and ninetyfive dollars and twenty cents. I therefore assess the libellants damages at the sum of seven thousand two hundred and ninety-five dollars and twenty cents. And the proper judgment will be rendered in favor of John Cobb, the libellant, for this amount, and also for the costs of this suit. At common law, if both vessels are in fault, neither can recover in the case, though the fault be ever so unequal; while in admiralty the loss is equally divided. See 1 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 525, 526 and note 1, et seq., for an exhaustive collection of authorities. If one of the colliding vessels is guilty of some fault, she must show fault in the other, and that her own negligence was not the cause of collision. Fashion vs. Wards, 6 McLean, 152; 1 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 529 and note 2. The proper position of a lookout is generally forward, but reference must be had in all cases to the question whether the lookout could not see as well where he was as in any other position. The Morning Light, 2 Wallace, 550, 558; 1 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 576, 577, 578. Quare, How far is a sailing vessel bound to keep a lookout for vessels coming up from astern? The Emma, Holt, 209. If the collision was not owing to the absence of a watch the vessel will not be considered in fault. Mellon vs. Smith, 2 E. D. Smith, 462. 'Whether damages are to be allowed for the detention of the injured vessel while undergoing repairs, may not be certain; but the later, and we think the better, mode allows them." 1 Parsons on Shipping and Admiralty, 539, 540 and note 1, and cases there collected.-[Reporter. Rice vs. Montgomery. CHARLES H. RICE vs. JAMES MONTGOMERY et al. CIRCUIT COURT.-DISTRICT OF INDIANA.-MAY TERM, 1866. 1. FACTOR AND PRINCIPAL.-Where a factor agreed with his principal to purchase for him fifty thousand bushels of wheat, in consideration that the latter would immediately forward to him by express ten thousand dollars, and the residue to pay for such purchase in four or five days, and where the principal wholly failed to forward the money, though the factor had immediately purchased twenty thousand bushels of the wheat: Held, that the factor was under no obligation to purchase the residue of the fifty thousand bushels. 2. PLACE OF DELIVERY BY FACTOR.—In the absence of any special agreement touching the place of delivery of wheat to be purchased by a commission merchant for his principal, the law will presume the place where the commission merchant does business to be the proper place of delivery. 3. REASONABLE TIME.-What is a reasonable time to send money by express from Muncie, Indiana, to Chicago, Illinois, is a question of fact for a jury. And if a declaration avers that three days are reasonable time, it is not subject to demurrer on that account. 4. PLEADING QUANTUM MERUIT.—An averment that the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff reasonable commission as a factor, ought to be followed by an allegation of the reasonable value of such commission. George Gardner, for plaintiffs. S. C. Sample, for defendants. MCDONALD, J.-This is an action of assumpsit. To the first and second counts of the declaration, special demurrers have been filed. Every point made by them, however, if valid at all, would be reached by general demurrer. The special causes are mostly mere arguments and citations of authorities, things unusual and improper in demurrers. The counts demurred to charge that the plaintiffs were commission merchants in Chicago, Illinois; that, in consideration that they would purchase for the defendants a large quantity Rice vs. Montgomery. of wheat, the defendants would, as soon as the same could be done, send to the plaintiffs from Muncie, Indiana, ten thousand dollars by express, to apply on such purchase, and pay the plaintiffs such balances of money as might be necessary to reimburse them for as much over the ten thousand dollars as the wheat might cost, within four or five days thereafter, and to pay also to the plaintiffs their reasonable charges and commissions for their services in the transaction; that, in pursuance of this arrangement, the plaintiffs immediately purchased for the defendants twenty thousand bushels of wheat, and were ready, willing and able to purchase as much more as would be necessary to fill the contract; but that the defendants failed to forward the ten thousand dollars within the time specified, and refused to accept the wheat already purchased for them, and have not paid anything on the contract. This is substantially the case presented in both the counts, and they only differ in this, that the first count charges that the plaintiffs were to purchase for the defendants fifty thousand bushels of wheat, and the second avers that they were to purchase a quantity not exceeding fifty thousand bushels; and in this, that the first count does not expressly aver at what place the wheat was to be delivered, and the second count alleges that it was to be delivered at Chicago. 1. It is objected to the first count, that it is not stated that the plaintiffs purchased more than twenty thousand bushels of wheat for the defendants, whereas they ought to have purchased fifty thousand. This objection might be well taken if the case were a mere sale of wheat. But it is a case of agency, and not of sale. By the agreement the purchase of fifty thousand bushels was not a condition precedent. According.tc the count, the plaintiffs were not bound to purchase any wheat till the ten thousand dollars were sent them. This was the condition precedent in the case, and though they did purchase the twenty thousand bushels, they certainly were not bound to buy any more till they received that sum. By failing to Rice vs. Montgomery. forward it the defendants first violated the contract, and the plaintiffs were bound to go no further in its performance. 2. It is further objected to the first count that it does not state where the wheat was to be delivered. The count has no express averment on this point. It does, however, show that the plaintiffs were commission merchants, doing business at Chicago. And this we think sufficiently shows that the wheat was delivered there. 3. It is averred in these counts, that three days, one of which was Sunday, were a sufficiently long period for the defendants to have forwarded the ten thousand dollars to Chicago. The defendants insist that it was not a reasonable time; and that as courts officially take notice of geographical distances, this averment is defective as matter of law. We think courts must, ex officio, take notice of the distances between well-known geographical points in the United States. But we suppose we can not officially take notice how long it might take an express company to carry ten thousand dollars from Muncie to Chicago. The declaration avers that three days was a sufficient time. Whether this averment is true, is a question of fact for the jury, not of law for the court. 4. As to so much of the contract as may entitle the plaintiffs to pay for their costs and commissions for their services. mentioned in these counts, we think the objection to this part of them is well taken. Clearly, the declaration ought to have avered, as in the quantum meruit counts, what these services. were reasonably worth. It is averred that the defendants promised to pay the plaintiffs their "reasonable costs, charges, and commissions" relating to the contract; but failing to state the value of these, the averment is insufficient; and there can be no recovery under it in its present form. But as each of these counts charges in good form a breach of the contract to forward the ten thousand dollars, and to pay balances due on the purchase of the wheat over and above that sum, we cannot sustain the demurrers merely on the |