Duluth Superior Bridge Company v. Steamer Troy
| Decision Date | 24 February 1908 |
| Docket Number | No. 232,232 |
| Citation | 208 U.S. 321,52 L.Ed. 512,28 S.Ct. 416 |
| Parties | DULUTH & SUPERIOR BRIDGE COMPANY, Appt., v. STEAMER 'TROY,' her Boilers, Engines, etc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles E. Kremer and John A. Murphy for appellant.
Messrs. Harvey D. Goulder, Hermon A. Kelley, Frank S. Masten, H. R. Spencer, and S. H. Holding for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice fuller delivered the opinion of the court:
The Duluth & Superior Bridge Company owned and operated a bridge between the cities of Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, over the St. Louis river,—a navigable stream. The bridge was equipped with a swinging span, supported to a turntable resting on a base of stone and piles driven into the bottom of the river, leaving a space for the passage of vessels on either side of the supporting structure. When closed its ends rested upon permanent abutments, forming a passageway over the stream for street cars and foot passengers, and when opened allowing the passage of the largest lake steamers.
On August 11, 1906, the merchant steamer Troy, inbound, struck the center pier protection and glanced into the draw of the bridge, inflicting heavy damage. The bridge company filed a libel against the Troy in the district court for the western district of Wisconsin, in admiralty, claiming large damages. The Western Transit Company, owner of the Troy, filed exceptions to the libel, as follows:
'1st. That it appears from the averments of the libel that the bridge alleged to have been injured was a structure on land, for purposes of land travel and convenience exclusively, not erected, maintained, or operated in any sense or in any degree in aid of navigation, but, on the contrary, an obstruction and impediment to the navigation of a public navigable water channel and highway, a part of the public waters of the United States, then and there navigable to ships engaged in commerce and navigation.
'2d. That whatever of damage came to the bridge occurred on land, and no part of the same occurred or was suffered on water in place or manner within the jurisdiction of an admiralty court of the United States.
The court sustained the exceptions and dismissed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Div. of Litton Systems, Inc.
... ... former employee of Ingalls Shipbuilding Company, an unincorporated division of Litton Systems, ... Superior Oil Co. v. Pioneer Corp., 706 F.2d 603 (5th ... See Detroit Trust Co. v. Steamer Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 55 S.Ct. 31, 79 L.Ed ... 520 (1928). See also, e.g., Duluth & Superior Bridge Co. v. The Troy, 208 U.S. 321, ... ...
-
Victory Carriers, Inc v. Law 8212 54 18 8212 19, 1971
...other shore-based property. The Plymouth, supra; Cleveland Terminal & Valley R. Co. v. Cleveland S.S. Co., supra; The Troy, 208 U.S. 321, 28 S.Ct. 416, 52 L.Ed. 512 (1908); Martin v. West, 222 U.S. 191, 32 S.Ct. 42, 56 L.Ed. 159 Congress was dissatisfied with these decisions and passed the ......
-
Pine Street Trading Corp. v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
...where the damage was consummated. See Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, supra, 404 U.S. at 205-207, 92 S.Ct. 418; The Troy, 208 U.S. 321, 28 S.Ct. 416, 52 L.Ed. 512 (1908); The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20, 33, 18 L.Ed. 125 (1866); Penn Tanker Co. v. United States, 409 F.2d 514, 518 (5th Cir. 1969); F......
- State v. LaMance