THE OOE F.
YOUNG.
167
Owen, Gray &: Sturges, for appellee. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. We are satisfied that tbe towage service, for tbe recov-· eryof which this libel is filed, was not rendered on the credit of the schooner or ber owners, but both her master and the libelant understood that the towage was to be collected of the Ridgewood Ice Company, the charterer of the vessel. The decree of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs of this court, and the cause remanded to that court, with directions to render a decree accordingly.
THE COE F. YOUNG. IRoNS et at V;·'rHE CoE F. YOUNG.' (emmet Court 0/ Appeals, Second Cf!rcUtt. November 1" 1891.)
S.
L CoLLIIlION-BTBAM AND BAn.-:-LOOl!:OUT. Assillng vessel is entitled to assume that a steam-vessel. approaching her, is 1Jeo ingna.vigated with a propllr lookout, and with reasonable attention to the obUg&ti(lnB laid'upon her. SAM_DUTY 011' BAIL-VBBBEIr-BUTING OUT TACK.
8.
A salling vessel, beating in the vioinity of a steam-vessel, is not obliged to run out her tacks, provided her going about is not caloulated to mislead or embarrass the steam-vessel
BAMB-STATBMENT 011' CASB.
A tug was going up about the middle of the North river on a olear morning, and was grooually overtaking a sloop, whioh was beating up the stream. The tug had no lookout, other than her master at the wheel. The sloop went from one taok to another! when about 1,000 feet from shQre, a.nd the tug soon a.fter struok a.nd sank her. Tne tug ola.imed tha.t the ohange of course was the oause of the collision. The court found that the tug had ample time to have avoided tbe sloop after her going abo)J.t, and accordingly held. that the tug was solely in fault for keeping a defective lookout.
Appeal·from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. In Admiralty. Libel the steam-tug Coe F. Young for damage by a collision with sloop Mary; by the owners of the vessel, for its loss; the master, for personal injuries; and a deck-hand, for the loss of personal A decree for libelants was affirmed by the circuit -cOurt, and respondent appeals. Affirmed. On the morning of April 19, 1890, the steam-tug Coe F. Young left the foot of Fulton street, New York, bound for Yonkers. The morning was clear, the -tug had no tow, and went out about one-third of the distance across the river, and then took a straight up-river cOurse, going at full speed. She had no stationed lookout forward, other than her master in the pilot-house. When somewhere in the I
Reported b1' Edward G. Benediot, Esq., of the New York bar.
FEDER:A.LBEPORTER ,vol. 49. neighborhood of Twenty-Third street; her master discovered of him the small fishing sloopMary,which was beating up the river, heading :somewhat on the New York shore, and which was then to the eastward of-the cOlirse'of the tug. The litter kept oil with ·unabated speed. continually overtaking the sloop. When about off Twenty-Sixth or Twenty:8eventh.' street, and while still 1,000 feet from the New York shore, the sloQp\went about on her tack towards New Jersey. Shortly afterwards the tug struck the sloop" cutting off her stern, causing her to become a total wreck, aud inflicting personal injuries on her master, who was at the helm. The owner of the sloop broughtsuit Jar the loss of the vessel, the master for his personal injuries, and a deck-hand for the loss of his effects, all of which suits were consolidated on motion. The district court held the tug solely in fault, (45 Fed. Rep; 505,) and on appeal a pro forma affirmance was given by the circuit court, whence an appeal was taken to this court.
Benedict & Benedict, for The absence of a stationlltllOokout on is immatllrial, unless the collision was caused by sucb absence of lookout. The Farragut, 10 Wall. 334; The ,11 Wall. The 10 BlatQhf. 459,464:. The 6en. Franz Si,qel, 6 Ben. 550; The Margaret, 3 Fed. Rep. 870; TheBIJ,Ckeye, 9 Fed. Rep. 666; The Geo1'ye Murray. 22 Fed. Rep.. 117.122; Law v. Baker. Z6 Fed. B.ep. l64!. The sailing vessel was bound to beat out her tack. and her going abouta.$"she did was the sole cause of the collision. The Potomac, 8 Wall. 590; 'l'ke Adriatic,107 U. S. 512, 2 SUR' Ct. RElp. 355; The Oity ofNew l c75;The A. W. Thompson. 39 Fed. Rep. 115; The W. a. Redfield. 4 Ben. 227i The Illinois,lOa U. S. 298. The sloop's change of COurse misled and t'mbarrassed the tug. lI.'l/ld:n:d cfc zabriskie, for appellees·. ' . collision was caused by the failure of the tug to keep a lookout.
"BefQteWALLACE arid LACO¥BE,.. Circuit Judges.
"PER. CURIAM. 'The sloop was entitled to assume that the tug was navigating with a proper lookout, and with reasonable attention to the obligations laid' llpon her as 'an· overtakingatealn-vessel. If, under that assumption, the sloop's maneuver was not calculated to mislead or rassthe'tug. it is .immaterial whether or not she ran out her port tack. 'rhe, testimenyshows clearly, and in' fact it was conceded on the argument, :that: she had gone about and filled upon the starboard tack before the cOllision. The disputed question is whether there was abundant time and space to enable the tug, seeing her maneuver, to keep out.of the way. 11'hecolIision happened about opposite Twenty-Seventh· or street. Such is the testimony of the disinterested witnesses called by the claimant, who saw it from the foot of Twenty-Ninth street. Vial'jation in their estimates of the pre,cise distance is to be expectedj baHt was certainly below, notabov6, their own position. They lIlestify that the sloop w.ent ,about very shortly before, (thotlgh one of them fixes the time as three or four minutes,) and therefore a little further down the river. The witness Sl;\nds,who was 13tanqingQnt,he pier
THE
BOLIVIA.
189
at the foot of Twenty-Fifth street, says that she went about off TwentyFourth street, and that the collision took place off Twenty-Sixth or Twenty-Seventh street. Any estimate of his as to distances away from him, in the same direction, is as fallible as such estimates usually are; but it seems hardly possible he could be mistaken in the statement that one of the places he indicates is above, and the other below. his own point of observation. It seems a fair conclusion from the evidence that the sloop had sailed on her new tack, at least lIS far as from Twenty.. Fourth to Twenty-Sixthlltreet, which gave the tug ample time to conform het own navigation tothe change of the sloop's course, if she had seen the latter come about, as she should have done. The decree of the court below is affirmed, with interest and the' costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellant, and the cause remanded for further proceedings td be there taken in purl!uance of this opinion. "I.',
<
f
·
. THE
ADAUSet al. ". THE BOLIVIA. (Olrcuit' Court Qf Appeal8, Second C1Ircuft. December 14, 1891.) . 1. COLLISION-FoG BIGNALS BY BAILING VESSEIr-}{EOIIANICAL FOG-HoRN. By a co111sion, during a tog, between a steam-ship and a schooner, the ceived injuries from which she sank. The schooner bad no J;Dechllni6al fog.horn,. and, tho'ughtbe horn which sbe had was sounded, it was not heard by ,thOSe ,in chllrge of the ste&m-ship. IieW, that the failure of the schooner to hllve andQse an efficient fog-horn, to be sounded bv mechaniCl\1 means, as required by statuW, was at least a contributing cause of the collision. d ,, 2. SUIlE-REDUCING RATB OP SPEED OP STEAM-SUIP. A steam-sh;p,failing to reduce her speed, when going through a fog in One oftbe main lines of ocelln trllvel between New York and Europe, to such a rate as will admit of her being brought to a stand-still within the distance at which, in the condition of the fog, she can discover another vessel, is of a fault rendering her responsible for dllmages in. case of a collision which might hllve been avoided if hel' speed blld been less. . ' 8. BAME-}{CTUAL'FAULT-DIVI8ION OP DAMAGES. . Where the loss of a schooner by collision with a steams);Jip in a fog is. caused bl an improper rate of speed on the part of the Bnd the want of a proper fog. horn on the part of the schooner, the d&mages must De divided. 48 Fed. Rep. 173, reversed.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. In Admiralty. Libel by Robert B. Adams and another against the steam-ship Bolivia for the loss of a schooner by collision with the steamship. The libel was dismissed. Libelants appeal. Reversed.· Edwa:rd L. Owen, for appellants. HarriJngton Putnam, for appellee. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.