The Greenwich
Decision Date | 10 November 1919 |
Docket Number | 23. |
Citation | 270 F. 42 |
Parties | THE GREENWICH. v. RED STAR TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO. et al. SEABOARD EQUIPMENT CORPORATION |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
A. J Lindsay, of New York City (Richmond J. Reese, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant.
Burlingham Veeder, Masten & Fearey, of New York City (Chauncey I. Clark and Charles E. Wythe, both of New York City, of counsel), for claimant.
Hyland & Zabriskie, of New York City (Nelson Zabriskie, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
The libelant was the owner of the scow S.Y. No. 7. While in tow of the tug Greenwich, off Eaton's Neck, Long Island Sound, on June 23, 1915, bound for the dumping grounds, off the Neck, a distance of about 22 miles, she was damaged, thus giving rise to this claim. This dumper scow had four pockets having a capacity of 350 yards. She was loaded on June 22 1915, at West Farms Creek, with mud and brick, dug from its bottom. She was picked up at Stakeboat No. 2 off College Point, Long Island Sound, by the Greenwich. She had no power and there was no caretaker aboard. She was placed in the tow with another boat, the Blue Hummer, in tandem; No. 7 towing ahead. The weather was clear. She had a list of 1 1/2 feet to starboard and a freeboard of about one foot on her starboard side. The Blue Hummer was dropped at Captain's Island, and the Greenwich, with the 'No. 7,' continued on to the dumping grounds, 4 or 5 miles further. The weather continued clear, and she reached the dumping grounds about 11 o'clock. A deckhand on the tug was sent back to dump her. He was paid for dumping the scow by the respondent. She listed to starboard, and when the pockets were dumped, she rose out of the water 4 or 5 feet and immediately began to settle. An examination revealed that she had about 3 feet of water in her, and, although an effort was made to beach her, she sank after proceeding about 500 yards.
The scow was chartered by the libelant, the terms of which are contained in a letter of June 2, 1915, to the Builders' Brick & Supply Company, for $6 per day, without a scowman. An employee of the respondent agreed with the captain of the tug that a man from the tug would dump the scow.
The defense to the libel is that the scow was unseaworthy. Engineer Brush, of the respondent, testified as follows:
The same witness later in his testimony, on cross-examination, stated that:
This was after the scow was loaded for the first time. He further testified:
'
It was necessary to siphon her out after he unloaded her the first time, and before he made the repairs. He stated that she leaked like 'an old sieve.' After the repairs, he stated that there were small leaks through seams,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greenville Insulating Board Corporation v. Mcmurray
... ... Belden, 17 Barb. 513; Young v. Leary, 135 N.Y ... 516, 32 N.E. 607; Cary-Davis Tug & Barge Co. v. Fox, ... 22 Ped. 64; Cowles Towing Co. v. American Constru ... Co., 27 F. 622; W. & A. S. Inc. v. Heling Contr ... Corp., 50, F. 99; The Minerva, 266 F. 598; The ... Greenwich, 270 F. 42; Coal Mining Co. v. U.S. 15 F ... 367; J. W. Brown Inc. v. Fuller & Co., 153 P. 960 ... A ... covenant to return in good condition, is not intended to ... cover a failure to return, or a damage to the article due to ... the negligence of some third person ... ...
-
Stevens v. the White City
... ... C. S. D. Ala.) 162 F. 567; The Kunkle Bros. (D. C. N. D. Ohio) 211 F. 540, 543; The R. B. Little (C. C. A. 2) 215 F. 87; The Atlantic City (C. C. A. 4) 241 F. 62, 64; The Clarence L. Blakeslee (C. C. A. 2) 243 F. 365; Aldrich v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (C. C. A. 2) 255 F. 330; The Greenwich (C. C. A. 2) 270 F. 42; The W. H. Baldwin ... ...
-
THE WHITE CITY
... ... Pa. R. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 255 F. 330, the barge had been stove in during the night, and nobody could explain how it had happened. Had she been on charter the bailee would have been liable; his immunity could rest only upon the absence of any presumption in a towage contract. In The Greenwich (C. C. A.) 270 F. 42, the whole situation was brought out, and our comment that the injury raised no presumption was obiter; nevertheless, it shows the doctrine which we supposed applicable. The same is true of The W. H. Baldwin (C. C. A.) 271 F. 411. The libel in Hildebrandt v. Flower Lighterage ... ...
-
THE DUTTON NO. 6
... ... Because of her leaky decks and in conjunction with them her unsecured hatches, the Dutton No. 6 was unfit to navigate Long Island Sound. The Greenwich (C. C. A.) 270 F. 42; Delaware Dredging Co. v. Graham (D. C.) 43 F.(2d) 852; The Radnor (D. C.) 21 F.(2d) 982; The Senator Rice (D. C.) 15 F.(2d) 882, affirmed without opinion (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 883 ... With the deck tight, I do not believe there would have been any danger with ... ...