8ron Co. ".
THE CLYDE, THE NASHoTAB,and THE
· ' .. ;.' ..1 I \ .1
. ' . '.
-, ,; , . "
Tows., ' "":,,, , ' ' Asteamel,";wbich had :In,!!t taken on4'(;a1'g'o Ort Ii dock in the Cb,icago river,sWung out into the stream tor tnepurpose ot oii'her voyage, whereupon two tugs, , Eiach' toWf'i1g a oilnal.l:i6at; ,appt-Oached' ,lfrom opposite di"eotio:tl$. As SOOIl 'allJl!he perceived the tugs, the steamer stopped, and, swung, her llow,JIo$Jar as llhe,conld towards tbe sq.orel there being anothervessel,betwee,n her an,d", t1l,e Shore., 'Th,Ei two e tugs passed each otbeJ"hetweenthe,lrtieamer "lJ,Qre, 3Ild their two .. tne stellmer was not in, fault, but. tbat both tugs were tow.scollldell., to blame for attempting to cross llttnat' point,8lld that ellchtug should bear ha.lf theloS8.'" ", ,"", ",' , ,',' j ,
In Admiralty. ·Libei by the Illinois Stone Company lIgainst the"propeller the canalpropeUerNashotlih, aDd the cll;tl.lJ,bboat W. 'J. Roebuck, fbtthimages-C8usedby a collision., ' libelant., , ,',-;'" '. ,'.c"i"", John a. Richberg, for respondents.
BLODGETT, District Juc1ge. The libelant in this case seeks to recover damages sustained by him, as owner of the canal-boat Hogan, by reason of a collision which occurred between the Hogan and the canal-boat Roebuck, on the waters of the Chicago river, on the evening of the 31st of July, 1889, whereby the Hogan was sunk. The proof in the case shows that just before the collision the steam-propeller Clyde, having taken on a cargo of over 60,000 bushels of wheat at what is known as "Keith's Elevator," a short distance above the Halsted-Street bridge, and on the east side of the south branch of the Chicago river, cast ofl' her forward lines, and started her wheel for the purpose of swinging out into the river in order to start on her voyage; that the schooner Helen Williams lay directly below the berth at" the dock occupied by the Clyde. ,The Clyde's bow swung out into the stream past the Williams, and probably some distance into the river, when the whistle of the canal-tug . Nashotah was sounded for the draw of the Halsted-Street bridge, the Nashotah coming up the river with the Roebuck in tow, both lumber laden. The master of the Clyde at once took measures to swing the bow of his boat back towards the dock, but was unable to swing her entirely back against the dock, by reason of her having lapped partly against the
JReported by Louis Bolsot, Jr., Esq., of the Chicago bllr.
Williams:: ,At<tnis' time, the canal-tug Loomis was .coming; down the one of which was the Hogan, and had: sounded a single blast of her whistle for the Nashotah, to indicate that she (the Loomis) wished to take her tow through the west draw of Halsted-Street bridge, instead of the east draw, which was the starboard draw, and the one she would naturally take, and thc Nashotah had responded in assent to this proposition, so that the arrangement had been made between the Nashotah and the Loomis that the Nashotah, coming up stream, should pass through 'the ellstdraw, and the Loomis, going down, should pass with her tow through the west draw of the bridge. The Clyde being swung out into the stream somewhat. made it necessary that both the Nashotah and the Roebuck, her tow, should swing out into the stream a little for the purpose of passing the Clyde's bow, and in doinl! so, the Nashotah passed safely around the bow of the Clyde, and resumed her course nearly. parallel with the Clyde up the river; the Roebuck, followingup'on a lineaf about 150 feet in length, also swung out into the liver around the Clyde's bow, and, just as she had passed the Clyde's bow, collided with the Hogan. which was down the river in tow of the Loomis, breaking in her tow, and causing her to sink. I do not see bow any blame can be atta.ched to the Clyde for this accident. SJ:1e had only done what she had a right to do,-swung out into the stream. tor tlie purpose of starting on her voyage. As soon as sbe was apprised of't,l;le approach of the Nashotah and her tow, she not only stopped, but swmig her bow back as far as she could towards the shore, against the Williams, and remained there, giving rOom for the Nashotah and her tow to pass up the river. I do not think that the Clyde was bound to retreat, so to speak, bark into her berth, from which she had started. She bad the same right to occupy the water of the river that the Nashotah and her tow and .the Loomis and her tow had. Each of them must exercise their. respective rights so as, if possible, not to interfere with the other. I think the fault in this case, by which the Hogan was sunk, is attributable solely to the attempt on the part of the Loomis and the Nashotah tosi,multaneously take their tows past the bow of the C1yde,Uhder the circumstances: The Nashotah could have more easily stopped,perhaps, as she was cOlning up the river, and had whatever current there was against'her, and the proof shows there was some current; but I think it was negligence in both to attempt to pass each other through so narrow a space as was left by the Clyde at tbat point. One should have waited for the other. Possibly, under the circumstances, it was the duty of the Nashotah to have waited, but certainly one should have waited for the other; and it is clear that skillful men, watching the movements of the two hoats, must have seen that there Wits danger of a collision between these two tows at this point, and hence there should have been more care used, than was. I am therefore of <>pinioh that both the Loomis and the Nashotap were at fault, and the damages' sustained should· be divided. As there is no proof that the
ROebbck sustained any iiljury, and as no cross-libel bas been filed by her owners, a decree will ,be entered awarding to"libelant one-half the damages 'by the Hogan.
,; .4 steam-boatrpoved out of her
slip in a oarefuland, proper manner, after due notice to two oanal-boats, Intrnders,ill the slip, of her Intention, and after providinga steam-tug as a helper. Her side, however,.oamelin ,oontact with one of the !/Oats, which in turn was i pM/Bsed against.. lJbelant'. boat, and damaRed it. BeW; tbat the steamer was not liable for the collision.
, .' d
ANt) O.lNAL-BOAT-IN'1'BtrDIn BoAT.
In. Admiralty. Appeal from Ii. decree of the circuit court of the United States for the sO,uthern district of New York. The district lor said district circ"itcourt, which afdismissed the libel, and libelant appealed to firmed pro forma the decree of the district court,and libelant appealed to. this regulations of the New York city dock department, only seven .canal-boats may dock in the the foot of Rutgers street, 1Dast river. The slip is the regular berth of the steam-boat canal-boat was, one of 'seven lllwfully in the slip, Express: when two more canal-boats came in and moored ,9utside of her. The space lefUar to was very narrow. She seasonthe, o,utside boatS,?! her. the slip, and ably them to move away,whIch they dId not Qo. She aIso had a tug to herAn,ploving. She' moved. out nearly.in; a straight line, but he.r.starboardslde came in contact WIth the outsIde and. libelant'sbQl1t squeezed between t4e outsidebO'l1ts and a shorter' boat lying inside ,of her, and received injuries for which this suit was brought., .,... .' ·. ' Hyi<znq for appellant. '. Putnam, for appellee. PER CultiAM. We are unable to. find the Express in fault for this collision.. ,She notified the boats,whose presence in the slip caused all the trouble,to move before she left her berth, and was under no obligation to fumish them with the means to obey the orders of the dockmaster, to like effect, given them earlier in the day. She was properly berthed· at her pier, had the right to leave it, and was entitled to