costa against the Waverly in the second action. The AngUa also seeks to tax a bill of costs in each action against the Waverly. As to the first action I am unable to see any ground upon which to refuse costs to the tugs. Having defended successfully a proceeding taken against them, they are entitled to recover their costs against somebody. Certainly they cannot recover costs of the Anglia, for she at no time asked a decree against them, and took no proceeding against them. Their costs must therefore necessarily be paid by the Waverly, upon whose petition it was that they were brought into the case and compelled to defend. In the action brought by the Waverly the proceeding was directly against the Anglia and the two tugs. Ea.ch of the vessels proceeded against interposed a separate defense, the owners of the respective vessels not being the same. The tugs, being successful in their defense, are, of course, entitled to recover their costs against the Waverly, as is also the Anglin. The case of The American Eagle, (not reported,) to which reference was made, upon examination, is found to differ from the present case. In this case no ground is seen upon which costs can be refused to the tugs as well as to the Anglia, and, that being so, such costs must be paid by the unsuccessful party, namely, the Waverly·
et al. v.
(Distri.ct Oourt, E. D. New York. April 9,1890.)
COLLISION-Foa-PERILOUS NAVIGATION-EAST RIVER. SAME-DERANGED COMPASSES.
Tugs which navigate the East river in dense fogs do so at their periL
The tug M. was heW· in fault for entering a dense fog in the East river, knowing, as she did so, that her compasses 'Were out of order.
In Admiralty. Hyland &- Zabriskie, for libelants. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, for claimants.
BENEDICT, J. This is an action for damages received by the tug Howard Carroll while lying at the end of a dock, pier 7. in a dense fog, by being rnn into by the tug Mohawk. At the time of the collision the Mohawk was moving at a speed of about three miles an hour, directly upon the New York piers. The collision is to be attributed to the fault of the Mohawk in this, that she was navigating the East river in a dense
by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the :New York bar.
(ogwithout a compass on board., ,At the time of thecollisirin she was utterly ignorant of her position" supposing herself to be in the middle of the river,when in fact she was steaming some. three miles an hour, OOad on, to tbeNew York piers, and close to them.: ·Her testimony shows that she discovered her compass to be out of order before she went into'the fog. Upon such a discovery it became her duty to keep out of thefog,as she might have done,for there was then no fop: above the bridge .wheresbe then was.: Agide from'the failure to have a compass it was, in my a fault on the part of the Mohawk to go into the fog. She struck the fog bridge. She could have tied up at sornepier in that neighborhood, instead of which she attempted to pass down across the mOllth of the ferry sl1ps, and so lost her bearings, and came ilicontactwith the Howard Carroll. ' Tugs navigating the East river in such a fog as: this was do it at their peril. The libelants must have a decree,with a reference toasoertain their damages.
THE SEA GULL AND THE TRANSFER REED LONG ISLAND R.
t1. THE SEA GULL AND THE TRANSFER
(Dilltrf,ct Oourt, E. D. New York. April i4,1890.)
COLLTSION-STliiAlII-VllSSlliLS MEBTING-CHANGlii OJ!' COURSB-SIGNALB.
The steam-boat Sea Gull was proceeding by night up the East river, just below Blackwell's island. 'rhe steam-tug Transfer No.5. with a car-floaton her starboard side, came down the channel on the east side of Blackwell's island, made the lights of the Sea Gull on her starboard bow, and blew her. two whistles. The Sea Gull .ported to cross the. course of the Transfer No.5, but came in collision with the carRoat and was sunk. Her justification. for her course was that the tug blew her one whistle. The court found that the Transfer's whistle was a signal of two blasts. Held, that the Sea Gull was in fault for the collision.
In Admiralty. Actions for damages by collision. The suit of Reed and others was to recover for the loss of the Sea Gull. The collision broke the float loose from the Transfer No.5, and it.drifted against a Long. Island Railway Company float, lying at a wharf. To recover for the damages thereby occasioned, the second suit was brought. Hi'll8dale &: Sprague, for Long Island Railroad Company. Wilcoo:, Adams &: Maeklin, for the Sea Gull. ..,Page &: Taft and R. D. Benedict, for the Transfer No.5.
by Edward G.:Benedict, Esq., o! the New York :Bar.