Conklin v. R. P. & H. H. Staats

• Decision Date: 14 November 1904
• Citation: 70 N.J.L. 771,59 A. 144
• Parties: CONKLIN et al. v. R. P. & H. H. STAATS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

59 A. 144

70 N.J.L. 771

CONKLIN et al.

v. R. P. & H. H. STAATS.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 14, 1904.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Supreme Court.

Action by Jacob E. Conklin and Wilson P. Foss against R. P. & H. H. Staats. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Walter L. McDermott, for plaintiffs in error.

PITNEY, J. For a year or more prior to the month of January, 1902, the defendant corporation had been engaged in building new piers and wharves upon the Hudson river at Hoboken for the North German Lloyd Steamship Company, under employment by that company. In preparation for this work, and at different times during the progress of the work, the defendant removed a large number of old piles from the bottom of the river, and after their removal used a dredge or mud digger to remove the mud, so as to leave a depth of 25 feet of water at low tide. After this had been done, and in December, 1901, the plaintiffs shipped certain scow loads of stone to the defendant, under a written contract made between the parties, by the terms of which the loaded scows were to remain at the docks through the winter mouths, so that the stone might be unloaded by defendant from time to time as occasion required. One of the provisions of the contract was that the scows, while lying in the slip, should be solely at plaintiffs' risk, and they were to provide such men as might be needed to look after them. After the scows were received at the docks, it became necessary for the defendant to have one of them removed to a different berth, in order to make room for lighters bringing other building materials. Thereupon the defendant employed a tugboat to remove the scow in question from its original berth, and it was accordingly moored alongside another one of the several piers of the North German Company. The evidence of the plaintiffs tended to show that the defendant corporation was practically in occupation of the several piers and wharves. After the scow had been shifted, the falling of the tide let it down upon an old, submerged pile, the head of which, according to the evidence, was about 10 feet below the surface of the water at low tide. When the scow struck the pile she was listed in such a manner as to lose her cargo. The pile likewise penetrated the bottom of the scow, causing serious damage to it. The present action was brought to recover the damages thus sustained. At the trial the plaintiffs introduced evidence...