« AnteriorContinuar »
Libel for cargo damage dismissed as to the tug; decree granted against
BARGE P. R. R. No. 261.
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD, Libellant, vs. TUG DOWNER NO. 10. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, March 26, 1925. Before: GODDARD, D. J. Libel for damage to barge by alleged negligence of tug in permitting barge
to strike submerged floating obstruction. Libel dismissed. TOWING—132. Duty of Tug as to Navigation-COLLISION-147. Lookout. A lookout placed on the bow of a barge lashed alongside a tug is in a
better position to observe floating logs, etc., than if he were on the bow
of the tug. BURLINGHAM, VEEDER, MASTEN & FEAREY (THOMAS H. MIDDLETON, of Coun
sel), for Libellant. ALEXANDER & Ash (PETER ALEXANDER, of Counsel), for claimant.
YOUNGMAN, TRADING AS V. H. YOUNGMAN & CO., Respondent.
UNITED STATES, Impleaded. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, March 23, 1925. Before: CAMPBELL, D. J. Libellant chartered his coal barge to respondent who sent it with a cargo to
Ellis Island to deliver coal under a contract with the Government which was silent as to furnishing a safe berth. In November 1923 the barge was placed at a bulkhead where the fender piles were worn, so that the iron bands projected. As the barge rocked and rolled, the bands wore holes in the lower planks until the barge leaked.
WHARVES-161. Duty to vessel at Wharf. Held: 1. The U. S. as consignee of the coal was under the same obligation
as any wharfinger to furnish a safe berth, and this responsibility is measured by negligence. Look vs. Portsmouth etc. Ry., 141 Fed. 182; BerwindWhite vs. Bush Terminal, 1924 A. M. C. 477.
UNITED STATES-12. Consent to be Sued. 2. Failure to furnish a safe berth is a tort, for which the United States 1925 A. M.C. JURISDICTION-152. Contracts-Maritime Character. A contract for sale and delivery of coal by barge is not a maritime contract.
cannot be sued without its consent.
CHARTER—1535. Safe Berth—6131. Damage to Vessel. Charterer of a coal barge is liable for its own negligence or that of anyone to
whom it intrusted the barge, although it is not an insurer. Gannon vs. Consolidated Ice Co., 91 Fed. 539; White vs. Upper Hudson Stone Co., 248 Fed. 893; Schoonmaker-Connors Co. vs. Lambert Co., 268 Fed. 102. The failure of the consignee to furnish a safe berth for unloading a coal cargo
is negligence for which the charterer is liable to the owner. But the failure of the bargee to see what was happening or to complain and
shift the barge in time is a fault of libellant, who may recover only half
damages. MACKLIN, BROWN & VAN WYCK, for Libellant. WILLIAM F. PURDY, for Respondent. RALPH C. GREENE, U. S. Atty.; C. E. WYTHE, Special Assistant, for the U.S.
Reports of Cases in the Vice Admiralty of the Province of New York
and in the Court of Admiralty of the State of New York 17151788 with an historical introduction and appendix, edited by Charles Merrill Hough, United States Circuit Judge. Yale University Press, 1925. $5.00.
Note by Hon. HENRY G. WARD.
The history of admiralty jurisdiction in England is set forth in Mr. Justice Story's masterly opinion in De Lovio vs. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; Fed. Cas. No. 3776, in which he describes how the jealousy of the courts of common law restricted the jurisdiction by their construction of the statutes of Richard II in relation to it. On the other hand the Vice-Admiralty Courts of this locality in colonial times and the Admiralty Courts after the Revolution worked out a much broader jurisdiction here.
The cases reported in this volume show how this was accomplished. The judges decided the Qui Tam actions on behalf of the informer as well as of others for penalties and forfeitures, the causes of salvage, seamen's wages, assaults on the high seas and others, with practically no reference to precedents in their opinions. Acting thus independently, and evidently without fear of the local common law courts or of writs of prohibition, they developed here a jurisdiction and procedure in admiralty which by the early part of the 19th century became substantially like our present system.
It is to Judge Hough’s labor in looking up, separating and examining the old, frail and often almost illegible papers that remain on file in the office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York and to the generosity of members of the admiralty bar of this city that this volume permanently preserves the cases reported, which might in a short time have become unintelligible because of the loss or destruction of papers on file necessary for the preparation of the head notes and statements of fact accompanying the judgments rendered. It was a labor of love 1925 A. M. C. and a notable contribution to the history of our admiralty jurisdiction and procedure, as is happily expressed in the dedication of the volume:
The Clerks of Court
Miss Caroline Caldicott Helm
To them and each of them
This book is dedicated.