White Oak Transp Co v. Boston, Cape Cod New York Canal Co Northern Coal Co v. Same

Decision Date10 April 1922
Docket NumberNos. 116,124,s. 116
Citation66 L.Ed. 649,258 U.S. 341,42 S.Ct. 338
PartiesWHITE OAK TRANSP. CO. v. BOSTON, CAPE COD & NEW YORK CANAL CO. NORTHERN COAL CO. v. SAME
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. E. E. Blodgett, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner White Oak Transp. co.

Messrs. Henry E. Warner and John G. Palfrey, both of Boston, Mass., for petitioner Northern Coal Co.

Messrs. T. H. Mahony, of New York City, William R. Sears, of Boston, Mass., and Samuel Park, of New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Samuel Park, of New York City, for T. A. Scott & Co.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

On December 13, 1916, the steamer Bay Port, while passing through the Cape Cod canal, ran ashore on the south bank and the next day sank diagonally across it. In January, 1917, the Canal Company filed a libel against the White Oak Transportation Company, the owner of the steamer, to recover for damages suffered by the canal and the obstruction of traffic through it. It also filed a libel against the T. A. Scott Company, Inc., a wrecking company, for negligence in dealing with the steamer after it had grounded; but this company has been exonerated and is not before us. In May, 1917, the Transportation Company filed a libel against the Canal Company, to charge it with a total loss of the steamer and freight, and in March, 1918, the Northern Coal Company intervened seeking to hold the Canal Company for a total loss of the cargo, which was coal. The causes were heard together below and were consolidated by agreement for hearing and determination upon one record here. The District Court found no negligence on either side and dismissed all the libels. 251 Fed. 356. The Circuit Court of Appeals held the Transportation Company liable to the Canal Company, and reversed the decree in that cause. 265 Fed. 538. It also dismissed the intervening petition of the owner of the coal. 267 Fed. 176.

We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that the owners of the Bay Port and the Canal Company both ought to have known that it was unsafe to take the vessel through the canal. We agree with the dissenting Judge in the Circuit Court of Appeals that the loss of the cargo must be attributed to the joint negligence of the two; and we are of opinion that the amount of that loss, that suffered by the vessel and that suffered by the canal should be added together and divided between the Bay Port and the Canal.

The Bay Port was a lake-built steamer of the whaleback type, 265 feet long and of 38 feet beam, which had been brought to the Atlantic. When deeply laden she steered somewhat awkwardly but as well as other vessels of the tpye. She was loaded with 2,393 tons of coal and had a draft of 18 feet 2 inches aft and 17 feet 8 inches forward, when soon after noon on December 13, 1916, she appeared at the western or Wing's Neck entrance to the canal. Her captain was a man of experience and had gone through the canal twice with the Bay Port when empty, never when loaded. He had been solicited by the Canal Company to go by way of the canal, the Company representing the canal to be 25 feet deep throughout as its charter required. Mass. Act of 1899, c. 448, § 3.

Having got permission the Bay Port started in tow of a tug with a competent pilot. The tide was about half out, running west at about three knots an hour. After proceeding halfway through the canal the vessel passed over a shoal where there was not more than 21 or 22 feet of water, and soon after sheered toward the north bank and then toward the south bank where she grounded, at about 1,000 feet from the shoal. It is strongly argued that this and the shoal next to be mentioned caused the trouble, but, notwithstanding The Pennsylvania, 19 Wall. 125, 22 L. Ed. 148, we will accept the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Cooper Stevedoring Company, Inc v. Fritz Kopke, Inc 8212 726
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1974
    ...in a canal due to the negligence of both the shipowner and the canal company, see White Oak Transp. Co. v. Boston, Cape Code & New York Canal Co., 258 U.S. 341, 42 S.Ct. 338, 66 L.Ed. 649 (1922). See also The Max Morris, supra, 137 U.S., at 13—14, 11 S.Ct., at 32—33. Indeed, it is fair to s......
  • United States v. Reliable Transfer Co Inc 8212 363
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1975
    ...to pay to the other such sum as is necessary to equalize the burden.' See also, e.g., White Oak Transportation Co. v. Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co., 258 U.S. 341, 42 S.Ct. 338, 66 L.Ed. 649; The Eugene F. Moran, 212 U.S. 466, 29 S.Ct. 339, 53 L.Ed. 600. It has long been settled that......
  • Burgess v. M/V Tamano
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • March 22, 1974
    ...contribution claims are supported by a line of authority independent of Halcyon. In White Oak Transportation Co. v. Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company, 258 U.S. 341, 42 S.Ct. 338, 66 L.Ed. 649 (1922), the Supreme Court ordered divided damages between the plaintiff canal company and t......
  • State of Md. Dept. of Natural Resources v. Kellum, 93-1030
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • April 18, 1995
    ...tort is in admiralty and grounded on maritime theories of negligence and damages. In White Oak Transportation Co. v. Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co., 258 U.S. 341, 42 S.Ct. 338, 66 L.Ed. 649 (1922), a steamship laden with coal grounded in the Cape Cod Canal. The Canal Company filed a ......
  • 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