The Oneida

Decision Date08 May 1922
Docket Number304.
Citation282 F. 238
PartiesTHE ONEIDA. Petition of BENEDICT.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Bigham, Englar & Jones, of New York City (D. Roger Englar and L. J. Matteson, both of New York City, and R. F. Shaw, of Syracuse, of counsel), for appellants.

Duncan & Mount, of New York City (Russell T. Mount, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Before ROGERS and MANTON, Circuit Judges, and LEARNED HAND, District judge.

MANTON Circuit Judge.

A libel in admiralty, by John C. Rogers as owner of the scow Speedway and Gus Carlsen as master thereof, was filed November 24 1914, against the appellee in personam, claiming to recover $2,200 for damages alleged to have been sustained by the scow, and also to recover $150 for loss of personal effects by the appellant Carlsen. The suit was tried in June, 1916 and an opinion was filed in which this petitioner appellee was held liable to the extent of the value of the launch Oneida. It was found that the damages to the appellants were caused without the privy or knowledge of the appellee. An interlocutory decree was entered, and the cause referred to a commissioner to ascertain and compute the amount of damages. On August 4, 1916, an order was entered in said suit amending the answer of the appellee so as to set forth the right of limitation of liability. In the petition filed in this proceeding, the value of the launch is alleged not to exceed $500. A decree has been entered below permitting the limitation of liability to the value of the Oneida.

In November, 1913, the appellee contracted with one Christiano, a contractor, for the building of a sea wall to run along the property of the appellee at Chimney Corner creek, at Greenwich, Conn. The contract provided for the performance of the work on a cost plus 10 per cent. basis. Christiano contracted for the purchase and delivery of stone and cinders for the filling in from the Moran Towing & Transportation Company in January, 1914. The Moran Company agreed to deliver the material 'alongside the property of E. C. Benedict, Indian Harbor. ' Deliveries were not to commence 'until such time as Indian Harbor is free from ice. ' At the suggestion of Christiano, the Moran Company sent a superintendent to look over the channel, and he testified that at the fill the bottom was level and soft for a boat to lie there, but because of the shallow water the Moran Company advised Christiano that they would deliver the scows alongside Benedict's dock, where the Oneida was moored, and advised the contractor to unload the materials from the scow onto the schooner and transport the same to the fill in that way. The place where the filled-in work was to be done was about three-fourths of a mile up Chimney creek from Benedict's dock. The channel in the creek at low tide is about 100 feet in width. The average tide is about 7 feet. There was some navigation in the creek.

The launch Oneida had towed schooners with fertilizer up the creek; also a scow, which came from New York to get the Speedway off after the grounding, was towed up the creek and back again by the Oneida in charge of the appellee's launchman. Poles stuck in the mud marked both sides of the channel. Work was commenced the latter part of June. A schooner was employed for the purpose of transporting the material in the creek during the progress of the work. She had a gasoline engine of about 10 h.p. The scow Speedway captained by appellant Carlsen and owned by the appellant Rogers, arrived with a load of stone on April 1, 1914. Part of this cargo was transferred to the schooner and carried up the creek on the schooner. The launch and schooner then towed the Speedway from Benedict's dock to the place of the fill. After having discharged the balance of the cargo at the fill, the Speedway was towed down the creek by the Oneida alone. On this occasion there was plenty of water and the navigation was safely performed. No objection was made to being towed up the creek to the fill. The Oneida was 26 feet 6 inches long, 7 feet of beam, and drew from 2 1/2 to 3 feet, and had a 25 h.p. engine. On this first arrival at Benedict's dock, the appellee told Carlsen he could not get up the creek with the tug, as the tug would draw too much water, and that the scow itself would not get up if its draft was 7 or 8 feet. He advised the master to look at the harbor himself,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Petition of Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, SA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 15 Noviembre 1965
    ... ... 455, 462-463, 185 N.E. 698, cert. denied, 290 U.S. 656-657, 54 S.Ct. 72, 78 L.Ed. 568 (1933) ...          20 See La Bourgogne, 210 U.S. 95, 122, 28 S.Ct. 664, 52 L.Ed. 973 (1908); The Edward E. Loomis, 86 F.2d 705, 708 (2d Cir. 1936); The Oneida, 282 F. 238, 240 (2d Cir. 1922); The William J. Riddle, 102 F.Supp. 884, 888 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 200 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1952) ...          21 The claimants contend that their rights against Marina arise under New Jersey's wrongful death act, N.J.Stat.Ann. §§ 2A:31-1 to 2A:31-6, and ... ...
  • THE SEVERANCE, 5389.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 27 Diciembre 1945
    ... ... T. Williams, D.C., 126 F. 871; Dunn v. The Young America, D.C., 8 Fed. Cas. page 102, No. 4,178; The Startle, C. C., 115 F. 555; The Charles B. Sandford, 2 Cir., 204 F. 77; The Oneida, 2 Cir., 282 F. 238 ...         It seems to us that negligence of the owner in furnishing an incompetent tug should be imputed to the tug, just as is the negligence of the navigators charged with the handling of the tug at the time of the collision. We feel confident that the "Stone 6" ... ...
  • Keys Jet Ski, Inc. v. Kays
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 6 Febrero 1990
    ... ... Caskie, 890 F.2d 202 (9th Cir.1989); Endsley v. Young, 872 F.2d 176 (6th Cir.1989); Richards v. Blake Builders Supply, Inc., 528 F.2d 745 (4th Cir.1975); St. Hilaire Moye v. Henderson, 496 F.2d 973 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 884, 95 S.Ct. 151, 42 L.Ed.2d 125 (1974); The ONEIDA, 282 F. 238 (2d Cir.1922). In addition, the vast majority of district court cases have also applied the Limitation Act to pleasure craft. See, e.g., In re Boca Grande Club, Inc., 715 F.Supp. 341 (M.D.Fla.1989); In re Guglielmo, 704 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.N.Y.1989) (twenty-one foot motor boat); In re ... ...
  • Wood v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 1 Octubre 1954
    ... ... § 121 (now 33 U.S.C.A. § 147a) ...          24 33 U.S.C.A. § 91, now contained in Rule 15(c), 33 U.S.C.A. § 145m(c) ...          25 Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U.S. 96, 32 S.Ct. 27, 56 L.Ed. 110; The Atlas, 93 U.S. 302, 23 L.Ed. 863; The Oneida ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT