48 FEDERAL REPORTER.
Presumptions. »
Lmcorn and others o. Fmsnon. In error to the circuit court of the
United States for the district of California. This case was determined in the
supreme court of the United States at the October term, 1881. Mr. Justice
Field delivered the opinion of the court, reversing the judgment of the cir-
cuit court, and remanding the cause, with directions to enter judgment in
favor of the plaintiifs in error.
Although a duty to reconvey land conveyed for the purpose of building a
railroad arose when, by the terms of the trust deed, the time had passed
within which the work was to be done, and the conditions upon which the
trust was to be executed had become impossible, a reconveyance was to be
presumed only in the absence of proof to the contrary. Like other presump-
tions, it is suiflcient to control the decision of the court if no rebutting testi-
mony is produced. But all presumptions as to matters of fact, capable of
ocular or tangible proof, such as the execution of a' deed, are in their nature
` disputable. No conclusive character attaches to them. Presumptions are
indulged to supply the place of facts, but they are never allowed against
ascertained and established facts. When, these appear, presumptions disap-
pear. · ‘
J. H. McKune, A. T. Britton, and J. H. McGowan, for plaintiffs in error.
~ John Reynolds and S. O. Houghton, for defendant in error.
Admiralty—Jurisdicti0n—Maritime Tort.
Lmrumns o. Brmssme, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Appeal from
the circuit court of the United States for the district of Louisiana, decided in
the supreme court of the United States, May 8, 1862. Mr. Justice Blatchford
delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the decree of the circuit court.
Where the master and oiiicers of the vessel, just arrived and moored to the
wharf, we1·e accustomed to permit persons expecting to   on the vessel
freight consigned to them, as soon as she had landed and her gang—plank run
out, to go on board of her to examine the manifest, or transact any other busi-
ness with her master or otlicers, and libelant went on board to ascertain
whether ·a consignment of cotton seed had arrived on her, under such cir-
cumstances the relation of the master and of his co-owner, through him, to
libelant is such as to create a duty on them to see that libelant is not injured
by the negligence of the master; and if he is injured by a bale of cotton
being negligently allowed to fall on him, it is a maritime tort, and cognizable
in admiralty.
· J. G. Carlisle, for appellant.
, Durant & Hornor, for appellee. `
Cases cited: Waring v. Clark, 5 How. 441; Phila., W. & B. R. Co. v. Phila.,
etc., C0. 23 How. 209.