Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. WE Hedger & Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 247.,247. |
| Citation | 40 F.2d 417 |
| Parties | IRA S. BUSHEY & SONS, Inc., v. W. E. HEDGER & CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Macklin, Brown, Lenahan & Speer, of New York City (Edmund F. Lamb, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
William F. Purdy, of New York City (John E. Purdy, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
The libelant chartered its barge Hughes Line to respondent, furnishing and paying the bargee. The barge was without motive power, had been dry-docked just before the charter was made, and was used for carriage of cargo from New York to Buffalo through the barge canal. The barge was seaworthy when chartered, but, when redelivered, after two months, was damaged to an extent not accounted for by ordinary wear and tear. The libel set forth the making of the charter, the return of the barge in damaged condition, and alleged that the damage was caused by neglect on the part of the respondent in not properly caring for it and in not returning it in the same condition as when received, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
Witnesses from the tug which towed the barge from New York to Buffalo, and from the tug which brought her back, testified that she met with no casualty. Their testimony was confirmed by that of the bargee of another vessel in the tow. The respondent also put in evidence a letter from the libelant to the respondent, dated August 12, 1926, which stated that libelant had received a letter from the bargee of Hughes Line saying that the "barge was towed over rocks in the canal and struck hard several times." Respondent also introduced another letter from libelant dated September 1, 1926, saying that libelant had received a report from the bargee of Hughes Line that the barge while in tow of the tug Winthrop from Buffalo to New York "received considerable damage at bow and stern caused by action of tug * * * when its tow struck the entrance wall to Lock 16."
Upon the foregoing record, the trial judge directed an interlocutory decree for the libelant on the ground that it was "encumbent upon the charterer to show that the damages had not been sustained through its negligence."
Interrogatories accompanied the answer, which was a general denial, whereby the libelant was asked for (1) the time and place of the damage and the manner in which it was sustained; (2) what the alleged acts of negligence on the part of the respondent consisted of; (3) whether the bargee was employed and paid by the libelant and was on board when the damage occurred; and (4) for copies of all reports made by the captain of the barge concerning the damage. Exceptions to these interrogatories were sustained.
The respondent contends that:
(a) The interrogatories should have been answered and the exceptions overruled.
(b) The libelant failed to sustain the burden of proof imposed upon it.
(c) The libel should have been dismissed.
Charters of barges without motive power, accompanied by a bargee paid by the owner, are demises. The Daniel Burns (D. C.) 52 F. 159; Monk v. Cornell Steamboat Co. (C. C. A.) 198 F. 472; The Willie (C. C. A.) 231 F. 865; Hastorf v. Long (C. C. A.) 239 F. 852; Dailey v. Carroll (C. C. A.) 248 F. 466. It is argued that the barge in this case was chartered for use in the barge canal, and that the rule which makes such charters, as it was under, demises, is limited to vessels...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller v. United States
...without motive power are essentially subject to the control and direction of the tug that tows them. Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. W.E. Hedger & Co., 40 F.2d 417, 418 (2d Cir.1930); see also Griffith, supra; Blair, supra (barge subject to control of charterer whose employees maneuver vessel witho......
-
EXNER SAND & G. CORP. v. PETTERSON LIGHT. & TOW. CORP.
...render the respondent liable. Alpine Forwarding Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 734; Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc., v. W. E. Hedger & Co., 2 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 417. The burden of establishing the facts which give rise to the presumption is upon the libelant. The Roslyn, Ther......
-
Price v. LONG DOCK CO.
...Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215, 29 S.Ct. 252, 53 L.Ed. 480; Hastorf v. F. R. Long, etc., 2 Cir., 239 F. 852; Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. W. E. Hedger & Co. Inc., 2 Cir., 40 F.2d 417; The Thomas P. Beal, 3 Cir., 11 F.2d. 49; Monk v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 2 Cir., 198 F. 472; The Daniel Burn......
-
COMPLAINT OF COOK TRANSP. SYSTEM, INC.
...that charter of a barge without power is, in fact, a demise. See R. Lenahan, 48 F.2d 110 (2nd Cir., 1931); Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. Hedger & Co., 40 F.2d 417 (2nd Cir., 1930);3 The Nat E. Sutton, 42 F.2d 229 (E.D.N.Y., 1930); Moran Towing v. City of New York, 36 F.2d 417 (S.D.N.Y., 1929); Da......