(District Court, E. D. New York.
COLLIS10N-AI'PROACHING HEAD ON-DUTY TO PORT IIELM.
Where a sail-vessel and a tug were approaching- each other head on, or nearly so, and a collision ensued, held, that the tug was in fault in noL porting ner helm.
Carpenter tf; Mosher, for libellant. Miller, Peckham cf; Dixon, for respondent.
BEN.l!JDICT, D. J. There is in this case an abundance of conflicting testimony, but the controlling facts can be discovered without much difficulty. The two vessels were rounding the lower point of New York island, sailing in opposite directions on curved lines; the Amos C. Barstow being bound into the North river, and the tug bound to pier 3, in the East river. They came in collision off pier 2, in the East river. At the time of the blow both vessels were bearing in towards the New York piers, the Barstow under a port helm, and the tug under a starboard helm. If the vessels, as they neared each other, were appwaching head on, or nearly so, the tug was of course in fault, because under such circumstances it would be her duty to port her helm instead of starboarding, as she did. That the vessels were approaching head on or nearly so, as they neared each other, is disclosed by the testimony of the pilot of the tug. From the testimony of this witness it is evident that he saw the Barstow approaching him nearly head on; that he starboarded his helm, although he saw that the Barstow was then porting; and that the collision was caused by an effort on his part to shoot in to pier 3 ahead of the Barstow, when it was his duty to allow the Barstow to pass between him and pier 3, as she had the right and. was evidently intending to do. My conclusion, therefore, is that the collision in question was causnd by the fault of the tng, and not by any fault on the part of the Barstow, and accordingly the libel is dismissed, with costs.
NOTES OF CURRENT DECISIONS
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Removal of Cause. HYDE 'V. RUBLE, 3 Morr. Trans. 516. This was a suit begun by Ruble & Green on the sixth of March, 1880, in a state court of Minnesota, against the plaintiffs in error, who were defendants below, upon an alleged contract of bailment made by all the defendants as partners. The amount involved was a little more than $500. The plaintiffs were both cit.izens of Minnesota. One of the defendants was a citizen of Minnesota, but the others were citizens of Wisconsin and Iowa, and the business of the alleged partnership was carried o,n in Minnesota. After answers were filed, all the defendants filed in the state court a petition for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota, on the ground of the citizenship of the parties. At the next term of the circuit court the cause was remanded to the state court. Another petition was filed by all the defendants who were not citizens of Minnesota for a removal of the suit as to themselves, on the ground that there could be a final determination of the controversy, so far as it concerned them, without the presence of the defendant, 'who was a citizen of the state, as a party. Whereupon the state court, under the second clause of section 639 of the Uevised Statutes, ordered a removal, so far as concerned the petitioning defendants, leaving the suit to proceed in that court as to the other defendant. When the case was docketed in the circuit court, under this second removal, it was again remanded. To reverse these 'several orders of the circuit court this writ of error was brought. The decision of the supreme court was rendered January, 1882, by Mr. Chief Justice Waite. Where an action is brought in a state court by citizens of that state against several defendants alleged to be copartners, only one of whom is a citizen of such state, while the others are citizens of other states, the right of removal as to the subject-matter of the suit does not attach to the defendants who are non-residents, under the first clause of the second section of the act of 1875, because all the parties on one side of the controversy are not citizens of different states from all the parties on the other. can it be removed under the second clause of the same section on the ground that there was in the action a separate controversy wholly between citizens of different states, notwithstanding separate answers were filed denying the exiqt(445)