The Clingstone

• Decision Date: 22 January 1921
• Citation: 272 F. 192
• Parties: THE CLINGSTONE. v. TOMKINS COVE STONE CO. et al. SKEHAN
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

272 F. 192

THE CLINGSTONE.

SKEHAN v. TOMKINS COVE STONE CO. et al.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

January 22, 1921

Theodore L. Bailey, of New York City (Frank C. Welles, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant.

Clarence Sage Woodman, of New York City, for claimant.

Otto Scheilke, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for Frederick Semken.

William S. Butler, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for Turecamo Contracting Co Inc.

GARVIN District Judge.

This libel was filed by the owner of the power boat Niagara V against the barge Clingstone, for damages sustained as the barge swung around and struck her while both boats were moored at the pier at the foot of Bay Thirty-Second street Brooklyn. The claimant has brought in by petition the B Turecamo Contracting Company, Incorporated, to which the cargo of the Clingstone was consigned, and Frederick Semken the owner of the pier. On the evening of September 24, 1919 at 8 p.m., the Niagara V reached the Semken pier, at which the Clingstone was lying; the Niagara V, arriving after dark, asked and received permission of the captain of the barge to make fast to her. She accordingly made fast, and swung about 15 feet astern of the Clingstone, with one rope to the latter's starboard bow and a line to the pier. The barge was lying bow in; the launch, bow out. The next day the weather was too rough to move the Niagara V, and at 2:15 p.m. the barge was winded around in order to complete the discharge of her cargo. After notifying the Niagara V to move her bow line from the barge, the lines holding the barge at her stern were cast off, and she swung out, driven by the wind; as she came completely around, she crushed the Niagara V. The Niagara V did not ask any one's permission to make fast to the pier. There is testimony that signs were posted, giving warning that a boat docking there did so at her owner's risk; but these were not known to the Niagara V and were not brought to her notice, nor was she ordered to leave.

The claimant of the barge brought in Semken and the Contracting Company, by petition, upon the theory that the latter was the consignee and owner of the cargo, and that either that company or Semken had entire charge of the unloading. The evidence establishes that Semken had made an agreement with the Contracting Company by which he was to unload the cargo at a fixed price per cubic foot or yard and that, under the agreement, he assumed direction of the...