f'lnthe1' to .the southward than before,. but left ,heruPQna the ,course of the Lackawanna, then coming llpbelowl llnlLhavingthe Baltimore on her starboard side. The proximity ,of the tw.o, vessels .attbat time was suoh as to make rule 19 operIttive,And, l'lJle madeit the duty of the Baltimore to hold her course, and the iduty ,of the Lackawanna to avoid her. The Lackawanna, in w#h, the rule, ,ported, and commenced to, sheer to the eastward. This she did before the Baltimore straightened her course down the river. After the Lackawanna commenced her sheer to eastward, the pilot ofthe Baltimore, as he himself says, blew two whistles, and straightened her course down the river. This second change of the Baltimore's course was made in 19, and it was the fault that caused the collision. It was' no fault in the Lackawanna to sheer to eastward when she did. She ,had the right so to sheer and allow the Baltimore to cross ahead of her, 'fat the course of the Lackawanna was then crossing the course of the Baltimore, and theBaltimore wason the Lackawanna's starboard side.' It wl1a 1'.0 fault in the Lackawanna to hold that sheer when once taken, for she had the right to suppose that the Baltimore, when she' saw the Lackawanna sWing to east in pursuance of the rule, would. of course pass down on the as could then have been done Without difficulty. This view cif the case renders it unnec.e!l,sarytp.considertLe other points discussed by. the advacates. In accordance with this view the libel of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company against the must be dismissed, with costs, and the Hoboken .Land & Improvement Company must recover of the ferry-boat Baltimore the danlages resultini from the collision in the pleadi,ngs mentioned.
LAND & IMP. Co. v. THE BALTDI0nBo
PENNSYLVANIA R. Co.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. New York. July 12, 1888.)
In Admiralty·. On appeal from district court, ante, 613. Abbett & F'uller. for the Lackawanna. Biddl6 & Ward. for the Baltimore.
BLATCHFORD. Justice. The views and conclusions of the district judge In theSe cases areconcllrred in by me. Let there be a decree for the libelants in the suit brought against the Baltimore. for $2,194.38. with interest from April 6.1886·.and lor $1,200. With intel'estfrom the date of the Commissioner's rapot'ti,anll costs in the district cOUl't, taxed at $255.85. and for their costs intllis'cou.rt, to be taxed;.and let tht're be a decree dismissing the libel 'in the suit bl'oughtagainst tilt' Lackawanmt. with costs to th<l claimant in the district court. taxed at $37.85, and with its costs in this court, to be taxed.
Amrming ante, 618,
THEJ' A. C.
(DlBtrlct Oourt, N. D. New York. July 8. 1888 )
OoLLIBION-BETWEEN Tow AND VESSEL AT DOOle-TowING WITH LoNG HA.WBER.
The tugs Orr and Nettie were proceeding up the Hudsonriver. about 85 feet from the east bank, at a point where the channel was 400 feet in width, with the canaHoats Duryea and Hopson in tow behind, all in line. making the tow nearly 500 feet·in length from the bow of the Orr to the stern of the HOPllon. when the Hopson sheered to starboard. and struck the canal-boat Lyons, ly· ing unloadedat her dock. and caused the injuries complained of. It appears that the current was rapid, the exceptionally high, and the channel part of the way narrow and dangerous. Held that. in the circumstances, the tugs were in fault in up such 8 tow. and in passing so close to the dock. and that the Hopson was alsoin fault, for permitting .hersel'f to be towed in that manner, and thereby contributinll to the injury, whether also il;1 fault from bad steering, improper construction, or improper loading, or no,"
In Admiralty. Libel for damages. Hyland &- Zahriskie, for libelant. W. E. Kisselburgh, for The Nettie and The Orr. J. M. Landon, for The Hopson.
COXE, J. The owner of the canal·boat Nathaniel Lyons brings this libel against the steam·tugs Nettie and William Orr, and the canal-boat A. C. Hopson, to recover damages for injuries received by reason of their alleged negligence. On the 26th of April, 1887, the Lyons,unloaded. was lying at her dock at Troy, N. Y., on the easterly side of the Hudson river.' On that day the tugs Nettie and Orr.were proceeding up the river from West Troy to the state dam lock with the loaded canal-boats' A.C.' Hopson and W. F. Duryea in tow. They were in the following order: the Orr, the Nettie, the Duryea, the Hopson. The hawser from the Orr to the Nettie was about 40 feet in length, that from the Nettie to the Duryea was about 150 feet, and that from the Duryea to the Hopson was about 30 feet. The tugs are eaehabout 50 feet, and thecanal..boats 97 feet, in length. The entire distance, therefore, from the bow ofthe Orr to the stern of the Hopson was not tar from 500 feet. Opposite where the Lyons lay, and about 450 feet distant, was an island. On the day in question,. by reason of a freshet, tbis whole space was navigable. The tugs took a course about 35 feet from the east bank of the.river. When the Hopson was opposite the Lyons she sheered to starboard, and struck the latter four or fiv.e feet aft of the bluff of her port bow, causing the injuries complained of. No negligence can be imputed to the' Lyons. She was rightfully at the dock, and did nothing to produce the accident. The NeUie, 7 ,Ben. 497. Tbe.tugs were clearly in faultin attemP1ing to tow two loaded canal-boats, one behind the other, up a rapid current, rendered mor.e