The Gratitude

• Decision Date: 14 April 1887
• Citation: 31 F. 232
• Parties: THE GRATITUDE. [1] v. THE GRATITUDE and another. THE HENRY PRESTON, Sr. HART
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

31 F. 232

THE GRATITUDE. ^[1] THE HENRY PRESTON, Sr. HART v. THE GRATITUDE and another.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 14, 1887

Goodrich Deady & Goodrich, for libelant.

Alexander & Ash, for the Gratitude.

Wilcox Adams & Macklin, for the Preston.

BROWN J.

Shortly after the libelant's schooner, Joseph W. Fish, in tow of the tug Henry Preston, had got below the Brooklyn bridge, she came into collision with the bow of a railroad float in tow of the steam-tug Gratitude, which struck her upon the starboard side, and inflicted some injury for which this libel was filed. The railroad float had been taken out from the slip at pier 27, East river, to be towed down river. There was a high wind from the westward. The Gratitude having backed the float out into the river, turned the float's bows partly, but not wholly, around, and then made fast on the float's port side. While thus engaged the Gratitude gave a signal of two whistles to the Preston before the Preston had passed below the bridge, to which the Preston replied with two blasts of her whistle, which, as both pilots understood, indicated that the Preston should keep ahead, and that the Gratitude should go under the stern of the tug and tow. At that time there was at least 300 feet difference in the lines of the courses of the two vessels. The Preston, as I am satisfied upon the evidence, starboarded her wheel somewhat, in order to port as much as was safe, having reference to other vessels with tows which were coming up on the Brooklyn side. In this situation it was the duty of the Gratitude to keep her float away from the path of the schooner, which was in tow of the Preston, on a hawser.

The cause of the collision, I have no doubt, was the very high wind that prevailed from the west, which, striking the large upper works of the car-float, drifted her more rapidly out in the river than was anticipated. It was the duty of the Gratitude to provide against this contingency. She had no right to take such a float out into the stream to be blown by the wind in such a thoroughfare against other vessels, or in such a manner that she could not control the float's movements. The Gratitude was further specially in fault in that she did not, before making fast, turn the float's bows more nearly down the river. It was wholly in consequence of the float's angling position that, when she was seen to be drifting dangerously near to the line of...