HAIGHT V. THE MAYOB.
she also ought to have done. The City of Chester, instead of porting to go to the right and out into the river where she belonged. and where both the statute and the inspectors' rules required her to go, persisted in her maneuver to go inside, seeing which, the Skeel' then backed, but not in time to avert the collision. In all tbis, I think, the Skeel' did what was required, and all that was reasonably incumbent on her, to avoid the collision. The case, in most of its features, is similar to that of The Payne and The Vanderbilt, 20 FED. REP. 650, but with even less excuse for the City of Chester than the Payne had in that case. The libelants are entitled to a decree against the City of Chester for the full amount of the damages, with costs; and an order of reference may be taken to compute the amount.
HAIGHT and another v. THE
(Dis/ric Ouurt, S. D.N£w York.
ltlay 7, 1885.)
COLLISION - PUBLIC SERVICE -MUNICIPAL CORPORATION- COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITIES AND CORRECTION.
The corporation of the city of New York having been held by the state courts not liable to respond in damages for injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the employes of the commissioners of charities and correction while in the discharge of their separate functions, held, that a libel to recover damages against the city for a collision between a schooner and a steam-boat owned by the municipality, but in the exclusive use and control of the said commissioners, and while navigated by a pilot employed by thecommis. sioners, could not be sustained, though the collision was solely through the fault of the pilot of the steamer
In Admiralty. Alexander d; Ash, for libelants. E. Henry Lacombe, for the mayor, BROWN, J. Upon the merits of this cause 1 am of opinion that this collision, which occurred in the East river, between Sixty-second street and Blackwell's island, was not so far within the ed(\y as to make the navigation of the schooner faulty for being found within the eddy. 'rhe extent of the eddy varies with the tide; and the posi. tion and course of the schooner clearly prove, as it seems to me, that she had not gone so far within it as to be perceptibly affected by it. The steam-boat was therefore bound to keep out of her way. There was room enough for her nearer to the western shore, where she ought to have gone, and might have gone without difficulty. If the defendants were, therefore, legally responsible for the faults of the barge, the libelants would be entitled to a decree. But the steamboat, though owned by the municipality, was not at the time, as the evidence shows, under its control, or in its service, or und,er the
management of any officer or employe of the corporation. - It was in the exclusive service of the commissioners of charities and correction; and the pilot who was navigating her testifies that at the time of the collision he was in the employ of the commissioners of charities and correction, and had been for a long time previous. These facts bring the case, so far as I can see, entirely within the decision in the case of Maxmilian v. The Mayor, 62 N. Y. 161, where the responsibility of the corporation for the negligent acts of persons in the employ of the department of charities and correction is discussed by FOLGER, U. J., with his usual fullness and learning; and the conclusion was there arrived at, sustained by principle and authority, that the corporation could not be held for the negligent acts of the employes of that department, because it is an independent board, over which the corporation has no control, and which does not act for the use or the benefit of the corporation in the discharge of any of its corporate functions or duties. On this ground I am obliged to dismiss the libel, but without costs.
and another v.
(District Court, 8. D. New York.
May 12, 1885.)
COLUSTON-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-DISCHARGE OF BOATS.
A canal- boat loaded with coal was to the dock of respondents, who were bound to unload lwr. They employed shovelers, paying them by the ton. The captain was in charge of the boat and bound to move her as required, so that the different hatehes in turn should come hencath the stationary derrick. A scow being in the way so as to prevent the canal-hoat's moving far enough astern to bring the fore-hatch under the derrick without being wound round, to avoid the troul,leof the latter course, the shovelers, at thecnptain'srequest, got permission from those in charge of the scow, which was at the time unattended, to move it ahead. The scow was moved ahead and fastened by the shovelers, the captain of the canal-boat supervising it. Aflerwards a passing steamer cauHed the scow to surge hack and forth so that she Rtruck the canal-boat and injnred her. lIeld, that the respondellts were not liahle for the acts ofthe shoveler's in their imperfect fastening of the scow, nor for the consequent damage.,
In Admiralty. Hyland d: Z"abriskie, for libelants. Ba'rtlett, Wilson d: Hayden, for respondents. BROWN, J. The consignee was doubtless bound to provide a suitable berth for the libelants' boat. When the canal.boat, having discharged from the after and middle hatches, desired to discharge from the fore-hatch, and the scow was in the way so as to prevent the canal-boat's backing far enough to bring her fore-hatch under the derrick, it was a mere matter of convenience to the captain of the boat whether he should wind her round, which he might have done, leaving