The Margaret J. Sanford

• Decision Date: 01 December 1888
• Citation: 37 F. 148
• Parties: THE MARGARET J. SANFORD. v. THE MARGARET J. SANFORD. PARTRIDGE
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

37 F. 148

THE MARGARET J. SANFORD.

PARTRIDGE v. THE MARGARET J. SANFORD.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

December 1, 1888

Wilhelmus Mynderse, for appellant.

R. D Benedict, for appellee.

WALLACE J.

The steam-ship Tantallon was lying at a bulk-head at the Empire Oil-Work, Hunter's Point, East River, March 31, 1885 taking in a cargo of oil. Her bow projected about 16 feet across a canal 157 feet wide, which ran from the river between the premises of the Empire Oil-Works and the Standard Oil-Works. The bulk-head on the other side of the canal was 70 feet further out into the East river, and at this bulk-head lay an Italian bark, also projecting partly across the canal; her stem some 30 feet, and her bowsprit 30 feet further. The bark took her position after the Tantallon was moored. About noon the steamer Margaret J. Sanford, with a loaded car-float lashed on her port side, consigned to the Standard Oil Company, attempted to enter the canal. In doing so the port bow of the float struck the starboard bow of the Tantallon, inflicting injuries which were repaired at the expense of $700, and which also necessitated a delay of seven days in the loading of the steamer, detaining her that time beyond the lay-days provided for in her charter. This suit was brought to recover for the damages thus sustained by the Tantallon. The district court held both the tug and the steam-ship in fault, and divided the damages, and allowed no damages for the detention of the Tantallon beyond the expense of wages and maintenance of her crew and wharfage. The owners of the Tantallon have appealed.

It is plain upon the evidence that the attempt of the tug to pass between the two vessels upon the tide as it was then incumbered by a heavy and unwieldy float, was one which could not be made with prudence unless the tug had the extra assistance which her master called for, but was unable to obtain. Her master was aware of the risk of attempting to pass between the two vessels by which the entrance to the canal was obstructed, but preferred to encounter it, hoping doubtless to be able to avoid collision with either, rather than subject himself to the inconvenience of abandoning temporarily the undertaking in which the tug was engaged. The case, as regards contributory fault on the part of the Tantallon, does not turn upon the question whether she was originally culpable in taking a position in which she unnecessarily projected a few feet across the entrance of the canal. Probably, until the Italian bark took a position on the other side of the entrance, projecting still further across the entrance, there was sufficient room left for access to the canal for tugs with floats, and for all the purposes of the ordinary navigation of the place; but after that was obstructed to such an extent as would necessarily embarrass the movements of tugs with tows, and measurably interfere with their access to the canal in the usual course of traffic. When this became apparent, the Tantallon was not justified in remaining in her previous position, even though until then it was a proper one. There was plenty of room, and nothing in the way, to permit her to be moved astern. She cannot be exonerated merely because after she had taken her position the vessel on the opposite side of the entrance ought not to have taken the position she did. It was then that the probable danger of the situation should have been foreseen, and obviated in the exercise of ordinary care; and the Tantallon cannot excuse her own omission to do this because the peril of the situation was primarily attributable to the misconduct of the other vessel. The Tantallon must be deemed in fault because at the time of the collision she was assisting in an unnecessary obstruction of the canal, which impeded and complicated the movements of the tug and float. The case fails within the rule laid down in The Canima, 23 Blatchf. 165, 32 F. 302, and many other authorities, which it is unnecessary to cite.

By the decree of the district court the libelant was allowed besides one-half of the cost of the repairs of the steamer made necessary by the collision, one-half of $375.55 for consequential loss. That sum represents the amount of the port expenses of the Tantallon during the seven days she was detained by repairs. Nothing was allowed by way of demurrage. The Tantallon was an English 'tramp' steamer that occasionally visited the port of New York. She was under charter for a voyage to Bombay when she was injured, and was at the time being loaded for the voyage. She would have earned freight under this charter, above expenses, of about $70 per day for the time ordinarily occupied in loading, sailing, and discharging. The charter stipulated for demurrage at the rate of 45 pounds per day. She had no engagement beyond the immediate voyage, and there is nothing to show that after she arrived she actually found employment at Bombay within seven days. After she reached Bombay she engaged in the coasting business for a time, and then returned to England. It appears by the testimony of a witness for the libelant that 'the customary and usual amount to allow for detention for steamers for the class and size of the Tantallon' at the port of New York was 20 cents a ton; being, for the Tantallon's tonnage, $262 a day. The libelant also gave testimony to show what the Tantallon could have earned upon a return voyage from Bombay to New York, and it appears that if she could have got a cargo immediately, both at New York and Bombay, she could have earned for the time ordinarily occupied by the round...