property, it is not bound to treat as a trust a title obtained by fraud, or mistake, or one which the holder is estopped to set up against the patty seeking relief. The libelant is entitled to a decree for the possession of the vessel. Ordered accordingly.
THE AMlllRlOAN EAGLE. l
THE S. ]}. BA:aooCK.
STEAM-SHIP Co. v. THlilAMERlOAN EA.GL11J and another.
(DiBt1'ict Oowrt, E. D.N8iJJ York. July 2; 1886.)
COLLISION TuG AND Tow AND STEAMER - TuG CLOSE TO LINE 011' PIERS....,. STEA:Mlm MOVING OUT-mABILnY 011' TUG TO AVOID /;TEAHER.
Where the tug A., with a· tow astern, was coming down the North river, in the vicinity of Pier 1, and about 175 yards from the line' of the piers, and saw another tug ahead moving e.,steamer out from that pier, but was unable to avoid collision wiill her, it was held that a: tug with a tow is bound, in this locality, to be under'such control as to be able, by stopping. to avoid a steamer seen to be moving out from a pier haIfa mile, ahead, and that the A. was consequently solely responsible for the collision.
In Admiralty. Wheeler It Oortis, for the Atlas Steam-ship OllrpenterltMosher, ·for the American Eagle. Hill, Wing It S!wudy, for the Babcock. BENEDICT, J". The collision which gave rise to this action was, in nty opinion, caused, by thefa:ult of the tug American Eagle, and not by any fault on theparf of the injured vessel, or on,the part of the tug engaged in moving that vessel out from Pier 1, North river. The fault of the American Eagle was in coming down the river with two barges lashed side by side, uporia hawser about 250 feet in length, in such 8'conditionof wind and tide, and at such speed, that she could not by stopping avoid an object ahead and distant half a mile. It is plain that if the tug had stopped when sbe saw the steamer moving out of the pier, no collision would have occurred. It was her duty, running by the pier as close as she was, to avoid a steamer so situated. Atllg in this localiuy,' undertaking to pass down the liver with a towas'tern, 175 yards off the pier, is bound to be under such 'control as will enable her to ,stop in time to avoid collision with a steamer seen to be moving out from along-side a pier. The necessity forsnch ability is made plain by the C'Ontention, on the part of the American Eagle, that she could not avoid the. steamer by porting,
by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.
THE WM. N.'
wecause such a movement would have brought her in collision with vessels on the outside of her. Such a state of facts might easily occur, and in such a case stopping would be the only method of avoiding collision with a vessel ahead coming out from the piers. Ability to stop within a reasonable distance is therefore a necessity to navigation, under such circumstances as are proved in this case. I entertain great doubt as to the truthof the assertion that there was no room for the American Eagle to avoid the steamer by porting; but, if she.oQuld·not port,she was bound to stop. I find no fault on the 'part ofthaBabcock.. ' Let the libelant have a decree against the American Eagle, and let the libel be dismissed as against the Babcock.
Oourt. E. D. New ,York· .
CoLL1S10N-.FLOATING LOGS-ABSENcE OF LIGHT-PASSING TUG-ENTANGLING
.., . ". . '. . .' : logs to rem.ainfioating in the water iilong-sidehi8 derrick, with no li,gllt uI;>0n them.. ;rnthe, night tlie propeller of a passing tug"whose . pilot hlid no knowledge of the P1eseilce of the logs. caught in the log$,'whereby was d&Diaged.On suit brought against the tug lor the damage, thllt she wasuot liable. .
, BENEDioT,' J. In such a locnlityas this, in the Harlem river, it was not negligence 'in the pilot the WilliamN. Beach to allow the sterIi of his boat to approach within 16 feet of the libelant's dsrrick, then fasttothe shore. As the tide was, and as the tug was handIed,Wis plain that no injury would have been done to the libelant's property there, if'. the screw of the tug had not caught in sotrieplles which the lioelant had placed and allowed to remain floating. in the water along-side his derrick.. It was in the: libelant· to leave these piles where theywere when the tug's propeller was caught and'. by them, and· this negligence was the t,he ages corlipiaiintJd of. There was DO negligence oil tbepal1'Oftlt1et'ug in the water.. No light ,h1ad been' jn failing to ".ee the piles plaeedupon them. 'The- pilot·Of the tug badIiQ knowledge of their presence, nor any reason to suspect tHeir presenee r there.; The libel !ith cQsts. ,
lReported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.