Posey v. Scoville

Decision Date22 December 1881
Citation10 F. 140
PartiesPOSEY v. SCOVILLE and others. [1]
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

Joseph P. Hornor and Francis W. Baker, for libellant.

W. S Benedict and George Denegre, for defendants.

The Bonnie Lee was a passenger and freight steam-boat, making regular trips on the Mississippi and Red rivers, between New Orleans and Shreveport, Louisiana; was owned by Noah Scoville, and was being run, under charter, by the New Orleans & Red River Transportation Company. Jefferson B Posey was the second clerk of the boat. On August 7, 1880, in accordance with the usual public advertisements, the Bonnie Lee left New Orleans, bound for Shreveport. Between 7 and 8 o'clock on the night of the ninth of August, 1880, when near Lenoir point, on Red river, about 85 miles from its mouth, the boiler exploded. Posey at the time was sitting on the boiler deck, and was, by the explosion and the falling timbers, so injured that he died a few hours after he was taken from the wreck, which sank, almost immediately, in 35 feet of water. His widow, in her own right and as tutrix of their minor child, brought this libel in personam against the owner, the charterers, and the master of the boat for damages. It appeared that the boiler was found to be burned and one of the sheets was taken out and replaced by a new one on the day the boat left New Orleans, the seventh of August 1881, but after this was done the boiler was not tested. It also appeared that on the night of the eighth of August the boiler was found to be leaking so badly that they were compelled to stop the boat and caulk the boiler. The defenses are stated in the opinion of the court. There was a decree by the district court in favor of libellants for $2,500, and the New Orleans & Red River Transportation Company appealed.

PARDEE C.J.

The evidence in the record leaves no doubt that the boiler of the Bonnie Lee exploded, causing the injuries to and the death of Jefferson B. Posey; nor can there be any doubt that the explosion was caused by a defective boiler. The theory of a snagging--

'Which tore a hole in the hold of the boat 12 or 15 feet aft of the forward hatch, on the port side, nearly under the forward mud-drum, and broke off the mud-drum leg, and tearing open the timbers of the hull, and causing the bow to be raised up suddenly very high and then to fall, causing the boat to be hogged amidships, and upsetting the boiler, by the effect and cause whereof said boiler exploded and the vessel sank,'

-- Is improbable and wholly unsupported by the evidence. An explosion proved makes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Orcutt v. Century Building Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 22 de fevereiro de 1907
    ... ... 1; Mooney v. Lumber Co., 154 ... Mass. 407; Lee v. Railroad (Mo.), 87 S.W. 23; ... Kelly v. Railroad, 87 S.W. 583; Posey v ... Scoville, 10 F. 140; Smith v. Railroad, 18 F ... 304; Griffin v. Railroad, 148 Mass. 143. Falling of ... a building, burden on ... ...
  • Acme Cement Plaster Company v. Westman
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 26 de março de 1912
    ... ... Co., 18 F. 304; Sullivan v. Foundry Co ... (Mass.) 93 N.E. 576; Mulcairnes v. Janesville, ... 67 Wis. 24, 29 N.W. 565, 21 N.W. 30; Posey v ... Scovill, 10 F. 140; Conley v. Davidson, 15 ... Minn. 519, 2 Am. Rep. 154.) This rule of res ipsa loquitur is ... plainly applicable to ... ...
  • Kaw Feed & Coal Co. v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 17 de fevereiro de 1908
    ... ... 618; Thomas v ... Telegraph Co., 100 Mass. 156; McMahon v ... Davidson, 12 Minn. 357; Rose v. Transportation ... Co., 20 Blatchf. 411; Posey v. Scoville, 10 F ... 140; Young v. Bransford, 12 Lea 232; Railroad v ... Phillips, 49 Ill. 234. (2) It has been held in this ... State that if ... ...
  • Tinkle v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 19 de maio de 1908
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT