The Flowergate

Decision Date07 April 1887
Citation31 F. 762
PartiesTHE FLOWERGATE. v. THE FLOWERGATE. SLOAN
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

James Troy and John J. Allen, for libelant.

E. B. Convers, for claimant.

BENEDICT, J.

The evidence is not sufficient to justify finding as a fact that the condition of the eye-bolt, when it was put to use at the time the plaintiff was injured through its giving way, was such as to inform anyone of the fact that the bolt was already partly broken off. The eye was counter-sunk in the deck, and the old break was below the upper surface of the deck. This location rendered the defect in truth latent. The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient, but in reality insufficient solely because of a latent defect, entails no liability for damages caused by such defect.

The libel must be dismissed, with costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc, 176
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 16 d1 Maio d1 1960
    ...Fed.Cas. page 310, No. 5,970; The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855; The Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Lizzie Frank, D.C., 31 F. 477; The Flowergate, D.C., 31 F. 762; The A. Heaton, C.C., 43 F. 592; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; The Concord, D.C., 58 F. 913; The France, 2 Cir., 59 F. 479; Th......
  • Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 16 d1 Maio d1 1960
    ...however, was not founded upon the absolute warranty rejected in Couch, but upon fault. See, e. g., The Noddleburn, supra; The Flowergate, 31 F. 762 (D. C. E. D. N. Y. 1887); The Lizzie Frank, 31 F. 477, 479 (D. C. S. D. Ala. 1887) (which followed Readhead v. Midland R. Co., supra, in explai......
  • Dixon v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 7 d1 Fevereiro d1 1955
    ......1886, 28 F. 855; The Neptuno, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1887, 30 F. 925 — that duty was not an absolute one, but rather one of exercising due care. The France, 2 Cir., 1894, 59 F. 479; The Concord, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1893, 58 F. 913; The Flowergate, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1887, 31 F. 762. But the cases are not clear on whether the owner would be liable to the seaman in all instances where the seaman's injury was attributable to negligence chargeable to the owner. In The City of Alexandria, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1883, 17 F. 390, Addison Brown, the eminent ......
  • Lunney v. The Concord
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 29 d3 Novembro d3 1893
    ......515,. and cases there cited; The Bergenseren, 36 F. 700. The. liability of the ship and owners to employes as respects the. sufficiency of equipment and appliances, is not that of. warranty, as it is in regard to goods, but only for the. exercise of 'due diligence.' The Flowergate, 31 F. 762; The Dago, Id. 574; The Benbrack, 33 F. 687;. Canter v. Mining Co., 35 F. 41; 27 Stat. 445, c. 105, § 3. . . As. there is no evidence of negligence in regard to the ladder,. the libel must be dismissed. ......
  • 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