United States v. The John R. Williams, No. 230.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtL. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and FRANK, Circuit
Citation144 F.2d 451
PartiesUNITED STATES v. THE JOHN R. WILLIAMS et al. THE CABLE NO. 555.
Docket NumberNo. 230.
Decision Date04 December 1944

144 F.2d 451 (1944)

UNITED STATES
v.
THE JOHN R. WILLIAMS et al.
THE CABLE NO. 555.

No. 230.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 25, 1944.

Writ of Certiorari Denied December 4, 1944.


Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City (Robert S. Erskine, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent-claimant-appellant.

James B. M. McNally, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Vincent A. Catoggio, Jr., and William E. Collins, Sp. Assts. to U. S. Atty., both of New York City, and George C. Sprague, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for libellant-appellee.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

Writ of Certiorari Denied December 4, 1944. See 65 S.Ct. 271.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The United States owned a submarine telephone cable designated as No. 555 extending

144 F.2d 452
across the Narrows at the entrance to New York Harbor and connecting Fort Wadsworth and Fort Hamilton. On the morning of August 22, 1938, the Tug John R. Williams, belonging to Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, was proceeding out through the Narrows to the dumping grounds with the loaded dump scow No. 54 in tow on a single steel hawser and bridle, the hawser being about 1¾ inches in diameter. The tug had out about 800 feet of hawser, and the bridle on the bow end of the scow was about 38 feet long. It was necessary for the tug to slow down in the Narrows in order that patrol boats operated by the War Department might come alongside and pick up permits required for dump scows and inspect the scow. On the morning of August 22 the tide was ebbing so that when the tug slowed down the headway of the dump scow No. 54 continued, causing the towing hawser to slacken and to drop under water. The Tug John R. Williams, after surrendering her permit and starting ahead at half speed, took a heavy list to port. This indicated to her master that her towing hawser was caught on something. He immediately slowed down his engine to about 1/3 speed and exerted strain on the hawser by means of the tug's steam towing machine in an unsuccessful effort to heave the hawser clear. When these efforts to heave the hawser clear proved unavailing, its outer end was freed by cutting the bridle on the bow of the dumpscow. As the hawser was reeled in it was found badly cut for some 150 feet

An alarm system was maintained at Fort Hamilton to give warning in the event the cable connecting that Fort with Fort Wadsworth should be damaged, and this alarm was under constant surveillance. On the morning of August 22, 1938, at 10:38 A. M., the alarm gave the signal that the cable was out of order. Lieut.-Colonel Barrows, stationed at the Fort, looked out over the area where the cable was laid and saw a tug and dumper-scow in tow which, according to the testimony of another witness, proved to be the Tug John R. Williams and her scow. This witness also testified that the dumper was coming on with the tide and that there were men on the deck of the tug trying to free the hawser. Later inspection of cable No. 555 indicated that it had been broken and that it looked "as if it had been subjected to quite a strain just before parting". No part of it, however, came to the surface of the water at the time the tug was attempting to free the hawser.

Upon the evidence, which we have summarized, Judge Clancy entered an interlocutory decree in which he found that "in the absence of any other satisfactory explanation, we draw the conclusion of fact that the tug's wire rope was the agent which severed the libellant's cable." He also concluded that when the master of the tug recognized that the hawser was fouled, "running his boat for fifteen minutes at one-third speed and raising his hawser with the towing machine within the cable area was a violation of his duty and constituted negligence which was the proximate cause of injury to libellant's cable". His conclusion was sound. When the tugmaster ascertained that his hawser had fouled on some object that must have rested on the bottom, it was negligent to go on pulling with might and main against that object for fifteen minutes, particularly in an area in which cables were known to lie. No vessel but his was near.

The trial judge referred the matter to David V. Cahill, Esq., as commissioner to ascertain and compute damages due the United States as the owner of the cable. The commissioner reported items of damage due the libellant amounting to $1,918.67. The court confirmed his report and entered a decree in its favor to that amount, in addition to interest and costs, making an aggregate of $2,559.83.

The damages allowed in the sum of $1,918.67 consisted of expenses connected with the repairs to the cable. This amount to the extent of $724.70 is not questioned in case the injury to the cable is attributable to the respondent's negligence, as we have held to be the fact. The remainder of the $1,918.67, (after deducting $724.70) consisted of the following items:

 Fuel and water used during 8½
                 days' work on Cable No. 555 ... $ 91.65
                 Rations of crew for 8½ days .... 236.25
                 Pay of crew 8½ days ........... 866.07
                 _________
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Troupe v. Chicago, D. & G. Bay Transit Co., No. 255
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 1, 1956
    ...ex rel. Pressprich & Son Co. v. James W. Elwell & Co., 2 Cir., 1918, 250 F. 939; United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 1944, 144 F.2d 451, 454, certiorari denied Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 782, 65 S.Ct. 271, 89 L.Ed. 625; Civil v. Waterman S.S. Corp., ......
  • American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. M/V CAPE FEAR, Civ. A. No. 89-3438 (JHR).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • May 1, 1991
    ...on navigable water ... This provision was enacted in response to the Second Circuit decision in United States v. The John R. Williams, 144 F.2d 451, 453-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 782, 65 S.Ct. 271, 89 L.Ed. 625 (1944), whic......
  • Civil v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, No. 92
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 12, 1954
    ...L.Ed. 423; James Richardson & Sons v. Conners Marine Co., 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 226, 230 note 2; United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 451, 454, certiorari denied Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 782, 65 S.Ct. 271, 89 L.Ed. 625. Under F.R. 38(b) and (d),......
  • Mangone v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Civ. No. 15951.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 18, 1957
    ...already been taken, and the Appellate Court reversed on the law. It is significant that in United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 451, a case wherein the complete trial had likewise been had, the Appellate Court transferred the in personam phase of the pending litigation an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. M/V CAPE FEAR, Civ. A. No. 89-3438 (JHR).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • May 1, 1991
    ...on navigable water ... This provision was enacted in response to the Second Circuit decision in United States v. The John R. Williams, 144 F.2d 451, 453-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 782, 65 S.Ct. 271, 89 L.Ed. 625 (1944), whic......
  • Troupe v. Chicago, D. & G. Bay Transit Co., No. 255
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 1, 1956
    ...ex rel. Pressprich & Son Co. v. James W. Elwell & Co., 2 Cir., 1918, 250 F. 939; United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 1944, 144 F.2d 451, 454, certiorari denied Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 782, 65 S.Ct. 271, 89 L.Ed. 625; Civil v. Waterman S.S. Corp., ......
  • Civil v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, No. 92
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 12, 1954
    ...L.Ed. 423; James Richardson & Sons v. Conners Marine Co., 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 226, 230 note 2; United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 451, 454, certiorari denied Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 782, 65 S.Ct. 271, 89 L.Ed. 625. Under F.R. 38(b) and (d),......
  • Mangone v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Civ. No. 15951.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • April 18, 1957
    ...already been taken, and the Appellate Court reversed on the law. It is significant that in United States v. The John R. Williams, 2 Cir., 144 F.2d 451, a case wherein the complete trial had likewise been had, the Appellate Court transferred the in personam phase of the pending litigation an......
  • 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