Ryley v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1909 |
| Citation | 173 F. 839 |
| Parties | RYLEY et al. v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Carpenter & Park, for libellants.
Armstrong Brown & Boland and James F. Campbell, for respondent.
This action was brought by Jennie M. Ryley, widow of the late James Ryley, by Thomas W. Ryley, son of the same, Frances E Trevena and Lucy J. Taylor, daughters of the same, against the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company to recover damages, claimed to amount to $10,000, for the death of the said James Ryley, on January 26, 1909.
It is alleged in the libel that the said James Ryley, on the said date, was master of the barge Bethayres, bound from Philadelphia to an eastern port, in tow of the tug Catawissa both tug and barge being employed by the respondent in transporting coal from Philadelphia to other ports on the Atlantic coast; that the other libellants were a son and daughters of the said James Ryley; that the tow left Philadelphia, the Bethayres being the second of three barges and proceeded down the Delaware River; that Ryley, together with three members of the crew, went forward in order to pay out the hawser of the barge to obey the orders of the master of the tug; that after paying out considerable hawser a signal was given to the tug to slacken her speed in order that those on the barge could make the hawser fast to the bitts of the barge; that the tug at the time was proceeding at a rapid speed and no response being received from the tug another signal by whistle was given to the tug and immediately thereafter a third signal was given by whistle; that no response was given by the tug to the signals and she continued on without any reduction of speed; that the mate and crew of the barge were unable to take the necessary turns around the bitts and when all of the hawser had been pulled out, it parted within a few feet from the end where it was made fast on the barge, the loose end sweeping around the barge, cutting off the hand of one of the deck hands and striking Ryley in the abdomen, producing a fatal would from which he died on the following morning at the Episcopal Hospital, Philadelphia. The libel then proceeds to allege the faults of the tug, and that the said Ryley left the said libellants surviving him, and further that the injuries were received while the barge was at Marcus Hook, Delaware River, within the waters of the State of Pennsylvania and within the jurisdiction of said state; that by reason of the premises the libellants have suffered the alleged damage which they claim to recover by virtue of the statute of the State of Pennsylvania (Act April 15, 1851 (P.L. 674), Secs. 18, 19, as amended by Act April 26, 1855 (P.L. 309), Sec. 1), and the acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto.
The respondent filed exceptions to the libel, as follows:
'That the said libel is informal and insufficient as follows:
First: That the said action is prosecuted by the widow and next of kin of the said deceased, whereas the action should be brought in the name of the widow alone.
Second: That said action is brought to recover for the alleged negligence of the master of the tug 'Catawissa,' a fellow servant of the deceased.
Third: That the death of said deceased occurred upon land within the State of Pennsylvania, and that this Court has not jurisdiction of the subject of the action.'
The important exceptions seem to be the first and third.
The statute law of Pennsylvania (Act April 15, 1851 (P.L. 674)) is as follows:
'Sec. 18. That no action hereafter brought to recover damages for injuries to the person by negligence or default, shall abate by reason of the death of the plaintiff; but the personal representatives of the deceased may be substituted as plaintiff, and prosecute the suit to final judgment and satisfaction.
Sec 19. That whenever death shall be occasioned by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE CITY OF VANCOUVER, 6698.
...Steamship Co., 208 U. S. 316, 28 S. Ct. 414, 52 L. Ed. 508, 13 Ann. Cas. 1215; The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 18 L. Ed. 125; Ryley v. Philadelphia R. R. Co. (D. C.) 173 F. 839. The last two cases are relied upon by appellee in the case at bar. It follows that the decision of the Circuit Court of......
-
Cordrey v. The Bee
...a person sustained on land although originating or caused by a vessel are not cognizable in admiralty." 1 C.J. 1286. In Ryley v. Philadelphia R. R. Co. (D. C.) 173 F. 839, the decedent was injured on a barge navigating the river, but died ashore. It was held that admiralty had no jurisdicti......
-
Pickles v. F. Leyland & Co.
...of an action actually begun. The cause of action in this case arose on land, and this court is without jurisdiction. Ryley v. Phila. & Reading R. R. (D. C.) 173 F. 839; The Kaian Maru (D. C.) 2 F.(2d) 121. As to Hamburg-American Packet Co. v. Gye, 207 F. 247, 124 C. C. A. 517, and The Anglo......