United States v. Port of Portland
| Decision Date | 12 October 1906 |
| Docket Number | 4,856. |
| Citation | 147 F. 865 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PORT OF PORTLAND. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
William C. Bristol, U.S. Atty.
Williams Wood & Linthicum, for respondent.
This is a proceeding, by libel in personam, by the general government against the port of Portland, whereby it seeks to recover for damages sustained by reason of the alleged negligent navigation, while upon the Columbia river, of the tug, John McCracken, and the dredge, Columbia, as tug and tow, on the part of the respondent and the officers and crew in charge of such vessels, whereby they collided with the lighthouse tender Manzanita, a vessel of which the government is owner. Exceptions are interposed to the libel, for the reason 'that it appears therefrom that respondent is a public corporation created by and under the laws of the state of Oregon and that the dredge, Columbia, and tug, John McCracken, are the property of the respondent, and were owned and operated by it in its public capacity and that it, as such public corporation of the state of Oregon, is not liable for torts committed by its employe's while operating any of its property in such public capacity.'
This presents the question for consideration. The port of Portland was created by act of the Legislative Assembly of the state of Oregon, with power to make all contracts, to hold, receive and dispose of real and personal property, and to do all other acts and things which might be requisite, necessary, or convenient in carrying out the objects of the corporation, to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, and to improve the channel of the Willamette and Columbia rivers between Portland and the sea in aid of shipping and commerce, and with full authority, to the same extent that the state might enter into the exercise thereof, from time to time to make establish, change, modify, or abolish such rules and regulations for the use or navigation of the Willamette and Columbia rivers between Portland and the sea, or the placing of obstructions therein, or the removal of obstructions therefrom, as it might deem convenient, requisite, or necessary, or in the best interests of the maritime shipping, or commerical interests of the said port of Portland, and, to that end, was duly authorized to employ such engineers, superintendents, mechanics, clerks, and other persons as it might find requisite or convenient in carrying on its work, or any part thereof, and at such rate of remuneration as it might deem just. Sections 4635-4638, 4661, B. & C. Comp. As was said in the case of the same title as this, which was instituted as a proceeding in rem to recover for the same alleged negligence (D.C.) 145 F. 705:
'The constitutionality of the act was brought to a test in the case of Cook v. Port of Portland, 20 Or. 580, 27 P. 263, 13 L.R.A. 533. It is there declared in effect that the port of Portland is a municipal corporation, and that its purposes and powers are 'all public, political, or governmental,' and that the corporation, and the commissioners who exercise its powers, are as well the agents of the state, delegated to exercise a part of its prerogatives. ' The sole object of the corporation,' says Mr. Justice Bean, speaking for the court, 'is to so improve the Willamette and Columbia rivers at the city of Portland and between that point and the sea, as to create and maintain a ship channel of a specified depth, and, for this purpose, it is given full power over these rivers, so far as the state can grant the same."
In so far, therefore, as the state had the power and authority in the premises; that is, over the navigable waters of the Columbia river and the channel therof, the Legislature has constituted the port of Portland, as it were, an arm of the state, to perform its functions in the particulars specified in the act creating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The St. David
...653; Workman v. Mayor, 179 U.S. 552, 21 Sup.Ct. 212, 45 L.Ed. 314; O'Keefe v. Staples Coal Co. (D.C.) 201 F. 131; United States v. Port of Portland (D.C.) 147 F. 865; City of Boston v. Crowley (C.C.) 38 F. 202; Greenwood v. Town of Westport (D.C.) 60 F. 560; The Alaska, 130 U.S. 201, 9 Sup.......
-
The Thielbek
...not responsible, is, we think, sufficiently answered by the cases of Workman v. Mayor, etc., of New York City, supra, and U.S. v. Port of Portland (D.C.) 147 F. 865, affirmed by this court in 176 F. 866, 100 C.C.A. There remains to consider the question whether the collision was caused by t......
-
Puerto Rico Ports Auth. v. M/V MANHATTAN PRINCE
...v. Mayor of New York City, 179 U.S. 552, 21 S.Ct. 212, 45 L.Ed. 314 (1900); The Thielbek, 241 F. 209 (9th Cir.1917); U.S. v. Port Of Portland, 147 F. 865 (D.Or.1906). Vicarious liability was not an alternative that all ports wanted to live with.2 The control was great, but so were the finan......
-
The Thielbek
...211 F. 685 THE THIELBEK. THE THODE FAGELUND. Nos. 6111, 6116.United States District Court, D. Oregon.February 23, 1914 ... Wm. C ... Bristol, of Portland, Or., for Wilhelm Wilhelmsen ... Wood, ... Montague & Hunt, of ... Teal, ... Minor & Winfree, of Portland, Or., for Port of Portland ... BEAN, ... District Judge ... On ... ...