1. Towage — Injury to Tow — Liability of Tug.

A ship which consents to being towed with another vessel to avoid delay, and without any advantage having been taken by the tug, assumes the extra risk of the double tow, and cannot hold the tug liable for an injury she sustains as a result, except on the ground of negligence in the performance of the contract.

2. Same — Breaking of Hawser — Inefficient Steering of Tow.

A tug cannot be charged with fault because of the breaking of a hawser used for towing a ship, which was of sufficient size, made expressly for its use, thoroughly tested, and guarantied to be of a strength greater than was necessary, and had been in use but three months, and which apparently broke because of the improper steering of the tow, which placed it under a sudden and unusual strain.

3. Same.

A ship in tow cannot hold the tug responsible for her own failure to follow the tug’s course where the latter gave the proper signals to indicate changes of course, the duty of proper steering devolving upon the tow; nor does the fact that her sheering from the proper course could have been seen from the tug impose upon the latter the duty of warning her, where there was no danger not as well known to the ship as to the tug.

4. Same.

A tug had two tows on separate lines of different lengths. The shorter line parted, and the tug at once reversed, and slackened the longer line, but the tows came into collision. Meld, that the tug could not be held in fault for its failure to cut the hawser of the rear tow, where its action in reversing accomplished the same result as promptly and effectually.

6. Collision — Vessels in Tow — Negligent Steering.

A ship and a bark were both in tow of a tug on separate lines. The ship was on the shorter hawser, and on the port quarter of the tug. Through inefficient or negligent steering, she failed to follow the course of the tug, but was allowed to sheer to starboard, across the hawser of the bark, and then sheered in the opposite direction, when her hawser parted, and she fell back, coming in collision with the bark, and being still upon or against the latter’s hawser, and off- her own proper course. Meld, that the ship, without whose Initial fault the collision would not have occurred, was solely liable for all damages, although the bark may have made an Improper maneuver in extremis, and after the collision had become inevitable.

6. Same — Damages for Delay — Charter Fixing Demurrage as Evidence.

In a suit for collision, where the Injured vessel was delayed for repairs, the provision of her charter fixing the rate of demurrage is competent evidence of her actual damages by reason of such delay, and, although It may not be conclusive, makes out a prima facie case In the absence of other proof.

7. Admiralty — Bond fob Release of Vessel — Decree against Surety.

Where bond has been given by the claimant of a libeled vessel, under Rev. St. § 941, a final decree, awarding- damages in the suit, may be entered against both principal and surety at the time of its rendition.