not think the circumstances reasonably required it. Their signals were of one whiEtle, which meant that each was going to the right; i. e" continuing on her course to the right. Nor would there have been any difficulty had the Camelia kept in mid-channel, in which, or very near which, she must have been when she exchanged signals with the Drew. The Camelia's pilot so testifies. The place of the collision close to the middle ground, and thefact that the Camelia passed the Drew not over 100 feet distant, show that the Camelia must have hauled to the eastward after her signal to the Drew; and although there are statements of the pilot difficult to reconcile on this point, I understand his testimony in several places to admit this fact; and there is no doubt that while the Drew was passing the tow he was hauling to the eastward in accordance with his signal of two whistles to the Norwich below. The situation was really brought about by the pilot of the Camelia in shaping his course to pass the steam canal-boat which was ahead of him, before getting out of that narrow channel-way, instead of gradually slackening his speed a little, as he safely might and should have done, without attempting to pass her at that spot. It was imprudent and blamable for three boats. two of them having tows, to attempt to go abreast at the entrance of that comparatively narrow channel. This attempt is not imputable to the Drew; nor could her pilot anticipate that; after a signal of one whistle, meaning that the Camelia would keep to the right, she would haul to the left, and diminish the space available to the Drew, so as finally to close up her passage, as was done. For .this reason I think the blame must rest with the Camelia alone. The libelants are entitled to a decree against the Camelia, with costs; and the libel against the Drew must be dismissed. with costs.
'11. THE GARDEN
(Districl Court, S. D. New York. May 10,1889.)
A ferry-boat overtaking a tug going up East river near Corlear's Hook crowded her near the shore inpl1ssing. The tug meeting at the same time the cross:currents of the ebb-tide from Jackson street was swung involuntarily by the bows under the guard of the ferry-poat's' port quarter, through the effect of the cross-currents or the suction of the ferry-boat, or both combined, and was sunk. Held, that the ferry-boat was liable (1) for failure. as the overtaking ve5sel, to keep out of the way, as required by rule 22; (2) for rnnning too near the tug in violation of 4 Edm. St. N. Y. 60, requiring boats. to navigate as near mid-river as possible, and 1 Rev. St. N. Y.*684, § 7,requir· ing a steamer passing another to keep off 20 yards. The tug was also in fault for failure to starboard in time to avoid the effect of the cross-currents or suction; or, if the space was too narrow, for no· stopping, as required by, rule 22, and the damages should be: divided.
SAME-FAILURE TO STOP-CROSS-CURRENTS-SUCTIQN.
In Admiralty. Libel collision. Owen, Gray & Sturges, for libelants.
STANDARD OIL CO.
THE GARDEN CITY.
R. D. Benedict, for claimants.
BROWN, J. At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon of October 4, 1888, as the ferry-boat Garden City was making her trip from James'slip to Hunter's point, she overtook the steam-tug Imperial in the vicinity of Jackson street, also bound up the East river, close to the New York shore; and in passing the tug she came into collision with her, the tug's starboard bow running under the guards of the steamer's port quarter about 10 feet aft of her paddle-wheel. The tug, being caught fast by the iron braces under the steamflr's guards, was dragged ahead for a considerable distance, when, careening over to .port, she speedily sank near the dock atCorlear's street. The evidence shows that the Garden City, on leaving James' slip, went out about 400 feet into the river; and then, heading up against the last of the ebb-tide, continued to haul in gradually more and more towards the New York shore, either to go in a weaker tide,or to avoid several vessels coming down in the middle of the river. She began to lap the Imperial a short distance below the Jackson-Street piers, which ate piers 53 and 54. The weight of pooof is that the ebb-tide coming round Codear's Hook strikes the upper half of pier 54, and is thence deflected towards the Brooklyn shore; sothat at about the middle of that pier the slack water or eddy begins, outside of which a considerable current sets over diagonally from the middle of pier 54 towards the opposite shore. The evidence shows that the Imperial went within 10 or 15 feet of the end of pier 53, so as to be within the slack water there; that her propeller canied away the line of one of several persoIls fishing with rods from the end of the wharf; and that the Garden City, already if.not fully abreast of her, was not more than from 30 to 75 feet outside of her, in the edge oLthe true tide; that when the. pilot-house of the Garden City passed ahead of the Imperial-probably abreast of pier 54-she was not more than from 25 to 50 feet away from her, and was headed iq a little towards the hook. When the bow of the Imperial struck and caught in the braces under the guards. of the Garden City, the evidence shows that this happened by a somewhat sudden approach towards the Garden City, either above the line of pier 54, or at least abreast of the upper part of that pier, and when, the Garden City was probably not over 50 feet from the end oithat pier. The place of collision, therefore, must have been within the true tide, and somewhere from 50 to 150 feet above the point where the Imperial struck the cross-current on coming out of the slack water below. This cross-current would necessarily swing her bows to starboard towards the Garden City, unless it were counteracted by a previous starboard helm. In addition to this there was a liability of the Imperial to be'drawn towards the Garden City from the suction of her paddle-wheels if she came near enough to be affected by them. The City of helm Brockton, 37 Fed. Rep. 897. The pilot of the Imperial put hard a-starboard whL'n he saw his bow begin to fall away towards theGarden City, and at the same time he signaled to reverse. The engines .were stopped. but could not be got to reverse, and the collision occurred
in a few seconds afterwards. By a practice not tobecoHlIrlended" the pleadings make no reference to the immediate and specific causes of the collisionjviz. ,the cross-current the tide from the upper half of pier 54, or the suction of:the GardenOity. Except for one or both of these 'did not port causes no ,collision would have happened. The her helm, or voluntarily change her course; and though the Garden City unjustifiably continued hauling in too near the New York shore, that ",ould not' have caused the collision unless either her suction or the crosscurrent swinging the Imperial's bows had carried her towards the Garden City. . 1. The Garden Citymust'be held to blame for unnecessarily going too near the Imperial; for crowding her inshbre; and for forcing her, without good'reason, into a situation where there Was manifest danger if she kept on, and wpich the Imperial could only avoid with certainty by stopping. This was not only imprudent and unjustifiable navigation on the part of the Garden City, and a failure "to keep out of the way," as required by rule 22, butit was in violation of two express statutes of the state; one of which requires boats to navigate H as near the middle of the river as IDfty be," (4 Edm. St. 60,) and the other, to keep off 20 yards in passing another steamer, (1 Rev. St. *684, § 7.) These statutes are not obsOlete, but have been frequently applied in this court, both as obligations, and as guides in determining what is prudent navigation. The J. M. Thompson, 12 Fed. Rep. 192jTheUncle Abe, 18 Fed. Rep. 272; The Warren, Id., 559; The Bay Queen, 27 Fed. Rep. 813; The Maryland, 19 Fed. Rep. 555; The Sam Rotan, 20 Fed. Rep.335; The Columbia, 29 Fed. Rep. 719; The Doris Eckhoff, 32 Fed. Rep. 556; The Britannia, 34 Fed. Rep. 557. 558. They must be observed where no necessity is shown for departing from them. I have no doubt that the Garden City did not keep 20 yards away from the Imperial in passing, nor as far from the shore as she might easily have done; and no valid excuse is shown for not doing so. The other vessels that were coming down did . not require her to go so near the shore. Her violation of these requirements was obviously most ernbarrassihg .to the Imperial, and plainly <:ontributed to the collision. 2. Though the primary cause ofihe collision was the fault ofthe GarCity, as above described, I am not satisfied-that the Imperial is without blame; or that the collision might not have been avoided by the Imperial, notwithstanding the Garden City's faults, had reasonable and proper attention been given to the duties evidently imposed by the situation. The immediate cause of the Imperial's swinging to starboard was not, I think, any supposed suction of the Gardeh City, but the crosscurrent olthe ebb-tide; which, striking the Imperial's port bow as she cnmeup from the slack water below carried her bows to starboard. The place of collision abreast of the upper corner of pier 54; or perhaps a ·little above it, is precisely where the effect, of such a current would be felt. ' The pilot of the' Imperial was familiar with the tidal currents at this place; and when the Garden City was of her length ahead of him, and evidently passing him so near to pier 54, it was his
WIGTON 11. THE
evident duty, in order to avoid collision from being swung round by the cross-current, whic,h he knew was abead of him, either to stop his boat in the slack water before reaching that cross-current, or else to have put the helm sufficiently to starboard before reaching the current to make sure that his stem would not be swung off by it. He did starboard his wheel more or less, and finally, but toolate, put it hard a-starboard·. There are discrepancies in his as to the amount and time of his starboarding; ,and in one place he states distinctly that he did not starboard his wheel until he noticed his stem swinging to starboard, when abreast of the Garde.\} City's paddle-box. As the cross-current must have struck his stem near the lower corner of pier 54, the strong starboarding, if delayed until that time, was too late. Whether the delay was caused by temporary inattention on account of the incident on shore, or by some other cause, is immaterial. It is sufficient to charge the Imperial with blame that, after the purpose of the Garden Oity to pass ber was plain, andaft,yrshe had partly passed her, hauling still further towards the shore, the continued on in very narrow quarters, and in the face .of manifest danger, without either stopping earlier; or. seasonably starboarding .sufficiently the cross-current. Rule, 22. I doubt theacf:uracy of some of the testjrpony. that she came up within two or three feet of pier M. If she went so near as that, dOUbtless no starboarding. could ,have withstood the effect of the but if she did go so near, her fault is the more in keepingon without necessity and running into so dangerous a position. The libelant. 18 entitled to II decree for half its damages.
(Circuit (lourt, llJ.D. Louisiana. May 81,1889.)
.H.uttTnm 'Lnms-SUPPLIJllS-CBABTER-PARTY. PersODs iDa foreign port who furnish the charterers of a vtjssel coalnecessary to'the completion of the voyage, relying on the credit of the vessel for payment, in ignorance of the terms of. the charter-party, have' a lien on the vesseL for the amount of the supplies, whether, under the charter-party, are ownerspro hac 'Dice, or are merely sailing it as agents of the owners. ' " ,
ante, 512. Bayne, Denegre &: Bayne, for libelants. J. McOcmnell, for claimants.
Libel for supplies.
un appeal from district court,
PARDEE, J., Upon the facts of this case as presented by the evidence in the record, the decree of the district court should be affirmed. If, under the terms of the charter-party, the charterers became and were