and deduct $1,000 for loss of cargo by taking coal in New Orleans,-'three deductions which should certainly be made,-we have nearly the same amount as we obtain if we take the offer of the defend.ants. above stated, as determining the damages. Therefore, as the amount of dam- . ages as determined by the said offer is fair to the defendants, not unjust to the libelant, is the best the case offers, and was approved by the district judge, it will be taken in this court as the basis for a decree. This fixes the libelant's damage at 5 shillings sterling per net registered ton of the ship. Let a decree be entered in this case in favor of the libelants for $1,296, with 5 per cent. interest thereon from January 15, 1884; the defendants and their sureties to pay the same, together with the costs of the district court; the libelant to pay the costs of transcript and of this court.
BAJ,TIMORE. 1 CO. 'V. THE BALTIMORE.
(Di8triot Oourt, 8. D. NeU! York. March 22,1888.)
COLI,ISION-STEAMER AND FERRy-BoAT-CROSSING COURSES. '
The steamer C., while cominKdown the North river, and approachinghel' wharf in New York city, was run into by the ferry-boat B., which was nearing her slip in New York on her trip from Jersey City. Each vessel signaled her .intention to pass ahead of the other, and each kept on her course until within some 200 feet of the place of collision, when both reversed. Held, that the C. was in fault (1) for not avoiding the B., which was on her starboard hand, and not signaling in time; (2) for attempting to pass to the left. when that course was not necessary, without a preViOtlS understanding by signal with the ferry-boat; and (8) for not reversing sooner. Held. that the ferryboat was also in fault, though she had the right of way, for not stopping and backing when the purpose of the C. to go ahead became clear, and it was manifest that the C. could not, or would not, by her own efforts, avoid col· lision. Ferry-boats must observe the usual rules of navigation when not so near their slips that observance of such rules will occasion embarrassment in en· tering.
.mAdmimlty.· Libel for damages. II. D. Van Orden, for libelant. Biddle &; Ward, for claimant.
BROWN, J. At ahout half past 7 in the morning of September 15, 1886, as the libelant's side-wheel steamer Catskill, was coming down the North river /lnd approaching her wharf at the foot of Jay street, she came in collision with the ferry-boat Baltimore, which was coming up from the Jersey City ferry to her slip at Desbrosses street. '1'he starhoard bow of the ferry-boat struck the starboard bow of the Catskill about .50 feet
'Reported by Edward G. l:Ienedict. Esq., of th" New York bar.
from her stem, and penetrated her side about seven feet, doing her very considerable damage, for which this libel was filed. The place of collision, as I find, was about 500 feet off the end of pier 27, new number, at the foot of Hubert street, and about 650 feet below the DesbrClssesStreet slip, and about 1,100 feet above the pier at the foot of Jay street, where the Catskill was to land. Each side claims that its own boat was stopped at the time of the collision. I am satisfied, however, that this was not the case as respects either. The Catskill, until she had passed Desbrosses-Street ferry, was running at the rate of 10 or 11 knots, being then about six or seven hundred feet off the ends of the piers, and heading for her pier at the foot of Jay street. After passing that slip, she gave a signal of two whistles to the ferry-boat, indicating that she would pass ahead of her; she next gave different signals to three or four other boats which were lower down in the river; and then, on perceiving that the ferry-boat was not giving way, she gave the order to stop and reverse her engines when within about 200 feet of the place of collision. The ferry-boat was coming up the river, heading for the end of the seccnd pler below her slip. The Catskill was observed a third of a mile distant. Three separate signals of one whistle, each at short intervals, were given, indicating that she would go ahead of her. No answer was heard until they were quite near. The order to reverse was given about 200 feet only from the place of collision, and only three and a half or four turns -of the engine backward were obtained before they struck. These cir..cumstances, with the character of the wound, leave no doubt that both vessels had considerable headway at the moment of collision. Both boats had long been accustomed to run on their respective lines; the ..course and intention of each were perfectly understood by the other. Each has invoked in its own favor the ruling in the case of The John S. Darcy and The Isaac L. Fiaher, 29 Fed. Rep. 644, claiming she had a right to be unobstructed while making her slip or wharf. I do not think that rule is, in the present case, applicable to either; for the rea:son that the place of collision was not immediately adjacent to the landing place of either, and because both could have pursued the ordinary ·course of navigation, according to the rules, without causing embarrassment to either in making her slip. The place of collision was, as I have sa·id, some 1,100 feet above the wharf of the Catskill, and some 650 feet below the slip of the Baltimore. The Catskill could have passed to the right without difficulty; and the Baltimore could, without the slightest embarrassment, have stopped, and gone astern of the Catskill, .as, too late, she endeavored to do. I cannot find, therefore, that there was in fact any special circumstances which, under the twenty-fourth rule of navigation, made a departure from the ordinary rules necessary. The primary obligation rested upon the Catskill to keep out of the way, as she had the Baltimore on her starboard hand. She was in fault -Jilirst. For not signaling to the Baltimore earlier than she did. This was first done at less than half the distance required by the irules. Second. She was further in fault for undertaking to pass to the ,teft when that course was not necessary and without having first had a
commbn understanding by an acquiescing signal from the Baltimore,' when she was not 13ufficiently in advance to enable her. to pass ahead of, the; Baltimore without;danger, or without assistance from thE) latter. The. maneuver was, therefore, at her own' risk. TheOityoJ Hartford, 11 Blatchf. 72, ,74; The Fanwood, 28 Fed. Rep. 373; The Vanderbilt, 20: Fed. Rep. 650;' The Ne:reu8, 23 Fed. Rep. 448. Third. For not reversirig sooner when the ferry-boat was seen approaching near at.considerable speed,and the danger of oollision was manifest. As respects the Baltimore, the case is similar to many others, in which, notwithstanding, the primary,fttult, is that of the vessel bound to keep , out of the way ,the other vessel is also held in fault for not .stopping and, backing as soon as the purpose, ofthe former vessel to go ahead was clear, and when it was manifest that the other could no longer, by her ownefforts, avoid collision. The Oolumbia, 25 Fed. Rep. 844; The F?'isia, 28 Fed. Rep. 249; TMFanwood, ld. 373; The Aurania, 29 Fed. Rep. 99. So long as the vessel bound to keep out of the way has clearly tillle and space enough to do so, and there are no certain indications of any contrary intent, the other vessel has a right Lo presume that the former will do her duty, and is not bound, under rule 21, to stop and reverse. When that limit is passed; rule 21 requires immediate stopping and reversing, if necessary to:,avoid collision. The pilot 'of the Baltimore in this case did not stop till much beyond that limit.' He had special reason to be upon his guard, because there were several vessels below, to which the Catskill was obliged to pay attention; and because he got no response to severaloLhis own signals to the Catskill. The course of the Catskill was plain. She was nearing the shore,evidently making for her Wharf, and unless she sheered to the westward some considerable time before reaching the place of collision, which she did not do, it would be difficult for the even to reach her .slip by going through the comparatively narrow passage to the right, or to the eRstward of the Catskill. The Catskill, instead ofsheering to the westward, as she might have done to make :room for the Baltimore to pass easily to the right, manifested from the first a contrary intention; she con.tinued .on ,hercoutse to run ahead oithe Baltimore at rapid speed. The pilot of the Baltimore saw what ,she was doing, and knew, or ought to have known, her intentions; but he did not reverse until within about 200 feet of the place of the collision, long after the course and the intention of the Catskill to oross 'his bow were plain. The pilot knew that· by backing earlier he could not possibly do any harm, nor in the least thwart the purpose oftha Catskill. The right of way is not a right to' run into unnecessary collision. The NonPareille, 33 Fed. Rep. 524, and cases cited; The Beryl,9 Pt'ob.Div. 137. Notwithstanding the fact, therefore, thlj.t the primary fault was the CatskiWs,in that the give way to her, and in attem pting to run ahead upon. that expectation, the ferry-boat must also be .held to blame. The· great stake in the lives and property of innocent.persons forbids any relaxati<lU of the rule that requires, in the face of an impending collision,that e8ch boat shall take such timely suitable measures to avert it as are
within her pdwer, without referElDce to the original SQ-caned right of way. The damages and costs Ulust therefore be divided.' The libelant is entitled to ,a: decree for half his 'damages and costs j and a reference may be taken to compute the amount, if not agreed upon.'
THE LoUISIANA} THE NEW ORJ,EANS. MILLARD
THE NEW ORJ.EANS. NATIONAL STORAGE CO. 11. THE LoumVAN WIE V. SAME. NEW YORK HARBOR Tow-BoAT Co. v.
(District Oourt, 8. D. New York. Mlirch 24, 1888.)
SALVAGE-FIRE ON PIER-TOWING VESSELS INTOSTREAltl:-ApPORTIONMENT 011' AWARD. , . .
Onthe !lofternoon of J!loDu!lory29,1887, a fire broke out on the bulkhead adjoin. ing piers 8 and 9; North river, in the city of New York, and spread with great rapidity pier 9. The steam-ship. Louisiana lay moored on the northerly side of.this pIer, alld the stcam-ship New Orleans on the southerly side, and both vessels cllught fire. Two, tugs hauled the Louisiana into the stream, ,and two others assisted in putting out the fire. Two other tUgs hauled out the New Orleans; olleof them' rendering butslight'service was not a party: herein. The. steam-ships were in great if they remained .long !lot the. pier. There was !lot UQ time any special pei'II to the tugs. The Louisiana and cargo were worth from $300,000 to $400.000; the New Orleans was worth$130,OJO. The above suits were brought by the various owners of the tugs to recover salvage. Held, that the Louisiana should pay $2,000 as salvage to the, four tugs which assisted her, viz., $1,400 to those that hauled her out, and .600 to the others; and that the New Orleans, whose danger was greater, though her value lesB, should pay the same to the awards to blil di,vided three·fourths to the one',fourth to crew.
Libel for salvage.
George H. Bruce, for storage company. Wilcoil:, 4dams &. MacHin, for Millard. John E.Parsort8, for claimants.
BROWN, J. The above libels were filed to recover for salvage services rendered to the steam-ships Louisiana and New Orleans on the afternoon ()f .Tanu1try 29, 1887. At about 4 o'clock of thl1t day a fire broke out among some bales of cotton upon the bulkhE\ad adjoins piers 8 and 9, North river. .The New Orleans lay moored,bows out, on the southside of pier 9; the Louisiana, bows out, moored on the northerly side. The fire spread with great rapidity along pier 9, and both steam-ers caught fire, and were considerably damaged. The cost of repairing the New Orleans was about$15 l 000; the Louisiana, about 87,500. ,Both were ha.uled out as soon aspossiblej steam-tugs Comrpun'ipaw,
. 'JReported by
G. Benedict, Esq., of tho New York