,161
(District Vourt. B. D.; NetD COLLISION-OANAL-BoAT AT
,.!
.,.,
';
<,
,;1
'.
'
111,1888.)
,
"',
Em> OlJ' PmR-l'BoPBLLER. Where a canal-boat, sound and strong, was lying at the end of a pier, and a propeller, in attempting to get into the adjoining slip, brought up against the canal-boat and injured her, held, that if it was necessary for the propeller to come up along-side and against the canal-boat, it was her duty to do 80 in an easy manner, and the propeller must be held liable for the damage resulting from the blow.
In Admiralty. W. W. Goodtrich,tor . , Beebe,'WilCd:t tt Hobbs, for claimant. . " This actio,ll' ilil',t<) the 080nal-boat S. Gray,while lying at the ettd of pier46iJ;l the North river, occasioned by a. collision between the the propeller time of theJoollision propeller Harry.lJ.aving a baz:ge laden. with wa,s enqea;vorii!g to get into the slip between pier 46 and pier 45. Thelibelant·sboat lay moored at the end of the pier. her bow .dbwnstream b.eyo'nd the pier.,,' 'tide was flood. The adopted by the propeller was, to corne head. to the tide off the end of pier 46, andgthen . move' into the 'slip. In 'accomplishing this maneuver she up against the canal-boat, that Was lying the e,nd of pier 4Er, causing'the' damage sued for. . .. ' .' . The proofs 'show that canal-boa.t was asoundboa.t. able to withstand aU ordina-ry contact with other vessels at the::piers, and th;at was moored in a place where, had also show that the blow which 'she rethe right to ceivedfrom theiR-arry wall a .severe,one.1f, as, contended in behalf of the propeller, it was necessary for thepropeUer; under the circumup >agairist' thecanal.boat, it was. stances, to nevertheless, ,the duty of the ,propeller to. do so .in an easy manner, Without dangerous force. This duty w&snot, discharged. The effect of the blow ah6ws that the blow was severe. I have no doubt that the injury to the libelant's boat resulted from a want of dUEl care on the part of the Harry. "" The case differs from the caSe.of The Charles R. Stone,. 9 Ben. 182. relied on by the claimant. In ,that calle the tug siDJ,ply sagged, mby '-Reported by R. D. & Wyl1ys Benedict
the tide so easily that no danger resulted from the bontact. Here. a blow was given with force in the side of a strong boat. There be. a decree ,for. lib,elallt·. with an order of reference to ascertain the' aiborlnlhr'tlie ,,':,' , 11 r j:
'1'/. (;,;
·-r ,. d
'I; j
f'
;J ' i
I
'.. i'·
"TIi:J(HuDsdk Ail,)' :
(Di8trlct COfl/l't, S. D. New York. 1. COLUSroN-SEVEItAL VEBSELS-JOINDEIt m
February 7, 1883.) ONE SUIT.
Where several vessels are alleged to in JpCl'USllig a c,ollisli>U by property of a third. J,.. iu.3"reli.. ¥?l!l by the lattei' to whicb recp;yer" hIS, aJI In ,fault shouid .bl' proceeded as dM'indltufs·to: aV6id J h1ufbp'nbit'j of' suits, "lind to enl$ble the damages to be 'jnstly' APJlortion-ed lljmbllg'tAlose liable,law In admiralty. 2, ,8.A)f]!j-oi,mto, ":ijYj , , one 'Y;lIuelpnly,it 11 , ,the cause, upon the , ,tlon'Oftll.t,. 'Vessel sued, a1re,tbflthe'othei V'filIsel to answer for its :sban :l\o,t>:lLtb.e'dlmJ≥,;,' J.t 1,,1. 'i',:'" (,_, '. :,ii,:Hp,4erthe t? an apPortion. ment of Jhe a.Blllages between Hie vessels liable to thIrd partIes, in a case of ;collis{on,'ie a'sul'lshititi'id rightwhidhcannotbestiffel'ed to'depeJ;ld upon the ;: ,ca,pric$\, 'or the in. eulng one vessel only.
IIi. cases not provided f9r '»1. cOlJrt rules in adn:l.iralty, it is competent district collrtid'l'egulate its own practice, andtoallow remedies aecording<'tothe of admiralty procedure,.as new exigencies arise, a8 tlle due adm.inistr.ation of justice. Ii. BUJE-BRmGmG Pot\RTI!JllJ.'" . , English act of 1873 it. is the constant practice, at ihsUmce'6f tile defend&:nt l to"bring in third persons as parties to be bound by the jndgment; where they:have,aeom.mon interest in the subject-matter of the l\tigation, 00. be determined. 6. C.;\8ES. .
4.
I '
' .
Collision cases in' present an aggregate of features which make theiD. suz' genen8, 'and the d'ue8.dinfuistratibn of justice renders it essential anti expedient m'this:class,of; OIlS8\! tha1;; the liability of all persons OT involved detennined in single Bction,rathllr than in successive wdepengent suits.
Motion to Bring in Another Vessel as Defendant. McCiJIt'thy; fOr UMlant. "r Benedict;"T-ajV&;' Bened-ictjJ'for the . BROWN, J. The libel in this casews,s filed against the steamtug Hudson to recover damages for an injury by a, collision to the