In re Starin
| Decision Date | 23 July 1903 |
| Citation | 124 F. 101 |
| Parties | In re STARIN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Richards & Heald and H. Putnam, for petitioner.
Corbin & O'Ryan, for claimant John T. Hill.
In Admiralty. Proceeding for limitation of liability.
On the 4th day of July, 1898, the petitioner was the owner of the steam tug Titan and the barge Robert Curry, which vessels were engaged in carrying excursionists; and while passing through Hell Gate the hawser by which the barge was attached to the tug became detached from the cleat to which it was made fast on the barge, and came in such contact with the claimant herein, a passenger on the barge, that his leg was torn off at the knee, and he was thrown to the deck with such force as to cause a compound fracture of the arm and other injuries. On the 3d day of December, 1898, John T. Hill, the injured passenger, began an action against John H. Starin, in the Supreme Court of the state of New York, to recover compensation for such injuries, which were charged to have arisen from the negligent manner in which said tugboat and barge were managed and navigated by the defendant, his agents and servants, and upon other grounds set forth in the complaint in said action. The defendant answered, and the issue so raised was tried on the 18th day of March, 1901, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $11,500. On March 19, 1901, judgment was entered on the verdict for said sum of $11,500, together with the sum of $492.13, costs and disbursements, amounting in all to the sum of $11,992.13. From such judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial an appeal was taken to the Appellate Division whereupon such judgment and order were affirmed, with costs (73 N.Y.Supp. 91), and judgment for such affirmance, and for the sum of $111.25, costs and disbursements of such appeal was entered. On November...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S & E Shipping Corp. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
...such costs create an aggregate liability in excess of the limitation fund, see The Wanata, 95 U.S. 600, 34 L.Ed. 461 (1877); In re Starin, 124 F. 101 (E.D.N.Y.1903), the Chessie System's claims for attorneys' fees and costs are not subject to limitation and should not be considered in deter......
-
Larsen v. Northland Transp Co the Norco
...F. 302; In re Old Dominion S.S. Co. (D.C.) 115 F. 845; Glenson v. Duffy (C.C.A.) 116 F. 298; The Ocean Spray (D.C.) 117 F. 971; In re Starin (D.C.) 124 F. 101; The City of Boston (D.C.) 159 F. 257; The Hoffmans (D.C.) 171 F. 455; In re P. Sanford Ross (D.C.) 196 F. 921; Monongahela River Co......
-
THE NORCO, 7036.
...In re Old Dominion (D. C.) 115 F. 845; Gleason v. Duffy (C. C. A. 7) 116 F. 298; The Ocean Spray (D. C. Cal.) 117 F. 971; In re Starin (D. C. N. Y.) 124 F. 101; The City of Boston (D. C. Mass.) 159 F. 257; The Hoffmans (D. C. N. Y.) 171 F. 455; In re P. Sanford Ross (D. C. N. Y.) 196 F. 921......
-
THE NORCO
...that my view is out of harmony with In re Moran Bros. Contracting Co., Inc. (D. C.) 1 F. Supp. 932, 1932 A. M. C. 910, and In re Starin (D. C.) 124 F. 101, and The T. W. Wellington (D. C.) 235 F. 728. In The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 239, 26 L. Ed. 351, and Monongahela River Consol. Coke & Coal......