Eclipse Lighterage & Transportation Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 181. |
| Parties | ECLIPSE LIGHTERAGE & TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Foley & Martin, of New York City (William J. Martin and George V. A McCloskey, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Kirlin Woolsey & Hickox, of New York City (J. Parker Kirlin and Robert S. Erskine, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
On the night of April 14, 1912, a tier of barges had been moored on the north side of the Gowanus Canal and another tier had been moored beyond them at their sterns. The outermost barge of the second tier was the Amherst, which was injured. She arrived at about 6 o'clock in the evening in tow of a tug which put her in place. There was only one man aboard the barge; he was in full charge. He retired about 1 o'clock a.m. Respondent's tug Williams came into the canal with a tow of two barges, one of which was loaded with stone and had a freeboard of about 15 inches. The District Judge found that she was moored alongside the Amherst. The question is whether the faulty seamanship of the tug in mooring her alongside the Amherst caused the leak which produced the injury. There is no doubt that there was a collision between the stone barge and the Amherst sufficiently severe to wake up the latter's watchman, who came on deck and then went into the hold of the Amherst and, as he testifies, examined her throughout. Seeing nothing amiss, he came to the conclusion that there had been no serious damage and retired to his bunk. He was awakened the next morning by a shout that his barge was sinking and got on deck just in time to avoid being carried down with her.
There can be little doubt that this injury was caused by the collision, the rake log of the Amherst having received a transverse blow. The evidence justifies such a finding as the injury could not have been occasioned by the mere turning over of the barge. No plausible reason other than the transverse blow is suggested for the sinking. The testimony justifies the inference that the blow caused the leak which resulted in the capsizing of the barge. This being so, we are not justified in setting aside the finding of the trial judge upon a pure question of fact. Assuming the injury to be the result of the blow on the rake log it is clear that the libelant was required to exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southport Transit Company v. Avondale Marine Ways
...F. 766; Scott v. Cornell Steamboat Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 59 F. 638; The Timor, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 61 F. 633; Eclipse Lighterage & Transportation Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 2 Cir., 242 F. 927, recovery limited to slight collision damage and not subsequent sinking from failure to pump; The Baltimo......
-
Sinram v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...and depends upon the injured party's duty to protect himself. The J. G. Rose, 9 F.(2d) 917 (C. C. A. 2); The Eclipse L. & T. Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 242 F. 927 (C. C. A. 2); The Asbury Park, 147 F. 194 (C. C. A. 2); The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, 145 F. 623 (C. C. A. 2); The Mars (D. ......
-
WE Hedger Transp. Corp. v. United Fruit Co.
...the jury. Decree reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. 1 Eclipse Lighterage & T. Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 2 Cir., 242 F. 927, 928. 2 Reversed on other grounds, 280 U.S. 320, 50 S.Ct. 118, 74 L.Ed. 451. 3 Certiorari denied, 335 U.S. 843, 69......
-
THE THOMAS J. CLEAVER
...The facts in that case were very different from those in the case at bar. The second case is the Eclipse Lighterage & Transportation Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co. (C. C. A.) 242 F. 927. There a barge was moored at night along a canal bank. A tug struck the barge such a blow that it awakened ......