Appeals. The agreement of January 12 was intended for practical purposes, to clear the railroad property from claims. It contemplated possible controversies as it provided for costs, but it did not require that every disputed lien should be fought out to the end. It was understood by the parties to extend to the compromise of claims that stood upon debatable ground, as was shown by the agreement under which the payment was made. It set aside a specific fund in a third hand to that end. All the parties acted in good faith. The $42,000 credited to the Warren Company as retained by the railroad was nearly twice what the railroad admitted to be due, apart from the compromise by which it secured the application of that sum to clearing its land. We are of opinion that there is no reasonable doubt that all parties were justified in the course adopted, that the instrument of January 12 created an equitable lien in favor of all alleged liens which the parties should deem to have color of right, and that the fund being thus appropriated and set aside it does not matter that the formal ascertainment of the specific beneficiary was made within four months of the bankruptcy proceedings. It was well understood before. The Root Company took part in the preliminary discussions and there can be no doubt that it was expected by all on January 12 that its claim, however disputed, would have to be dealt with when the fund came to be paid out. Decree affirmed. Argument for Appellant. 241 U.S. THE RAITHMOOR.1 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 24. Argued January 26, 1916.-Decided May 1, 1916. In determining whether the admiralty has jurisdiction over an incompleted structure in navigable waters to be used when completed as a governmental aid to navigation, its location and purpose are controlling from the time it was begun. . The jurisdiction that admiralty has over an incompleted structure in course of construction extends to that which is a mere incident to such construction. The admiralty has jurisdiction of a libel in rem against a vessel for damages caused by its colliding with an incompleted beacon in course of construction in, and surrounded by, navigable waters and which when completed is to be used solely as a governmental aid to navigation. 186 Fed. Rep. 849, reversed in part. THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction in admiralty of the District Court of a libel in rem against a vessel for damages caused by its colliding with an incompleted beacon in navigable water, are stated in the opinion. Mr. H. Alan Dawson, with whom Mr. Edward J. Mingey and Mr. J. Rodman Paul were on the brief, for appellant: The analogy to an unfinished ship supports the jurisdiction in the case. Ferry v. Bers, 20 How. 393; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 553; Graham v. Morton Transp. Co., 203 U. S. 577, distinguished, and see Phila. W. W. & B. 1 Docket title: Latta & Terry Construction Company v. British Steamship "Raithmoor," William Evans, Master and Claimant. 241 U.S. Argument for Appellant. R. R. v. Towboat Co., 23 How. 209, 215; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 59; Martin v. West, 222 U. S. 191. A ship becomes such when she is launched, notwithstanding she is still unfinished. Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 424. This case is governed by The Blackheath, 193 U. S. 361, and the general principles therein announced and applied, and see The Arkansas, 17 Fed. Rep. 383, 387, as interpreted by Cleveland R. R. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208 U. S. 316; Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610, and Johnson v. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388. Courts of Admiralty have taken jurisdiction for damages to the following structures for the reason that they were located in navigable waters and did not concern commerce on land. A beacon. The Blackheath, 195 U. S. 361. Submarine cables resting on the bottom of navigable water, notwithstanding connection of the ends with the shore. Postal Tel. Co. v. Ross, 221 Fed. Rep. 105; The William H. Bailey, 100 Fed. Rep. 115; S. C., 111 Fed. Rep. 1006; The Anita Berwing, 107 Fed. Rep. 721; The City of Richmond, 43 Fed. Rep. 85; S. C., affirmed, 59 Fed. Rep. 365; Stephens v. West. Un. Tele. Co., 8 Ben. 502. Temporary platform structure resting on girders sunk into the bottom of navigable waters. The Senator Rice, 122 Fed. Rep. 331. Injury to a person on a pontoon fastened to the shore by a cable and used as a landing in connection with a ferry. The Mackinaw, 165 Fed. Rep. 351. Floating bath-house moored to the shore by poles and chains. The M. R. Brazos, 10 Fed. Cas. No. 9898. Floating drydock moored to a wharf. Simpson v. The Ceres, Fed. Cas. No. 12,881. Raft of logs in tow of tug in navigable waters. The F. & P. M., 33 Fed. Rep. 511. Argument for Appellant. 241 U. S. Fish nets extending out from the shore into navigable waters. The Armorica, 189 Fed. Rep. 503. Steel brooms thrown into navigable water through the breaking down of defective wharf. The City of Lincoln, 25 Fed. Rep. 835, but see contra, Martin v. West, 222 U. S. 191. Salvage by a tug in extinguishing a fire on a steamship in drydock undergoing repairs. The Steamship Jefferson, 215 U. S. 130. Hire of a dredge while engaged in a partly land transaction in dredging material from a navigable stream for the purpose of piping it onto the land in aid of a land project. Bowers v. Federal Contracting Co., 148 Féd. Rep. 290. Repairs to an intrastate canal boat in drydock. Robert W. Parsons, 191 U. S. 17. The Injury to a floating elevator anchored to and moving up and down upon wooden spuds imbedded in the mud under navigable waters. The Frank R. Gibson, 87 Fed. Rep. 364. Courts of Admiralty have declined to take jurisdiction of injuries to the following classes of objects upon the ground that they were land structures: Warehouse on wharf, houses on shore and contents of warehouse on shore. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20; Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610; Johnson v. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388. Injuries to a pier, wharf or dock, and to persons or property thereon. Cleveland Terminal R. R. v. Cleveland S. S. Co., 208 U. S. 316; The Mary Stewart, 10 Fed. Rep. 137; The Mary Garrett, 63 Fed. Rep. 1009; The Albion, 123 Fed. Rep. 189; Homer Ramsdell Co. v. Compagnie Générale Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 845; The Curtin, 152 Fed. Rep. 588; The Haxby, 94 Fed. Rep. 1016; The Ottowa, Fed. Cas. No. 10,616. Injuries to bridges which immediately concern com 241 U. S. Argument for Appellant. merce upon land. The Troy, 208 U. S. 321; The Rock Island Bridge, 6 Wall. 213; City of Milwaukee v. Curtis, 37 Fed. Rep. 705; The John C. Sweeney, 55 Fed. Rep. 540; The Neil Cochran, Fed. Cas. No. 7996. A marine railway the upper end of which was on shore and securely and permanently fastened to the shore. The Prof. Morse, 23 Fed. Rep. 803. The surface part of borings made to locate aqueduct. The Poughkeepsie, 162 Fed. Rep. 494; S. C., aff'd in 212 U.S. 558. Goods lost in navigable waters through being thrown from a wharf as a result of the collision by a vessel with the wharf. The Haxby, 95 Fed. Rep. 170. A derrick used in erecting light house pier. The Maud Webster, Fed. Cas. No. 9302. See also on question of admiralty jurisdiction: The Steamer Lawrence, 1 Black, 522, 526; Benedict's Admiralty, 3d ed., §§ 329, 358; 1 Kent's Comm., 14th ed. at p. 379; Toledo S. S. Co. v. Zenith Transp. Co., 184 Fed. Rep. 391; The Harriett, 1 Wm. Robinson Adm. 183, 192; The Virgin, 8 Pet. 537, 549; American Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 1 Blatch. & H. 9; S. C., 1 Fed. Cas. No. 303; Dean v. Angus, Bee, 369; S. C., Fed. Cas. No. 3702. For discussions or application of the general principles above stated, see also The J. E. Rumble, 148 U. S. 1, 15; Andrews v. Wall, 3 How. 568; The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 201, 223; S. C., 21 Wall. 558, 582; The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 406; The Mary Ford, 3 Dall. 188; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441; Erie R. R. v. Erie Transp. Co., 204 U. S. 220; United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 202 U. S. 184; The Genessee Chief, 12 How. 443; The Angelique, 19 How. 239; The John E. Mulford, 18 Fed. Rep. 455, 459; The Mariska, 107 Fed. Rep. 989; Leland v. Medora, 2 Woodb. & M. 92; S. C., Fed. Cas. No. 8237; Rule 43 in Admiralty. For other cases containing instructive discussions of the rule that locality is the test of jurisdiction in tort, |