to the whole; and theaggtegate liabilities of all the owners of a vessel on accou.nt of the same shall not exceed the value of such vessels and freigM pending." By the act of June 18, 1886, § 4, (24 St. p. 80,) this section, and also sections 4282-4288 of the Revised Statutes, which contain other provisions for limiting the liabilities of ship-owners, are extended to all sea-going vessels, and this includes fishing vessels. The respondents Emerson and Whalen now offer to pay into court the sum of $303.50, received from the sale of the wreck, and claim that upon such payment they should,j:>e exempted from further liahility for all the debts of the vessel. But it is clear that this claim cannot be maintained. Their offer makes no allowance for the fares of fish caught and sold during the season. By the terms of the fishing contract, the cost of repairs should have been deducted from the proceeds of the fish caught and sold, and if this was not done, it was through no fault of the libelant. The season's cruising is to be counted as a single voyage, and the ings during the whole season's fishing are, equally with the vessel, liable for debts contracted on the vessel's account. The amount of the earn. ings does not appear, and they must be presumed to exceed the debts. As thereis no offer to pay the earnings into court, or to apply them to the payplent of the debts, there is no exemption from liability from the debts under the statutes referred to. rt appears that the repairs were furnished upon the order of Rhoderick alone,whc;> was also the master, without the privity or knowledge of the other and not under any contract with them, except so far as the mllster had implied authority to bind them as part owners for neeessari,es. As the liability of Emerson and Whalen for the repairs arises solely from their ownership of two-thirds interest in the vessel, and not on account of their personal intervention, the liability of each is limited toone-third of the debt, by section 18 of the act of 1884. The Amos D. 35 Fed. Rep. 665; McPhail v. Williams, 41 Fed. Rep. 61. The libelant is entitled to a decree for the whole debt against Rhoderick. and 101' one-third of the debt against Emerson and Whalen, respectively, with costs; and it is so ordered.
THE STEAM: TUG LUCKENBACH. LEWIS LUCKENBACH et al. v. THE GEORGIA and Claimants.
(01trcuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Oircuit. April 12, 1892.)
CoLI.ISION-'-TuG AND STEAMER-RuLE
19. A tug rounding Town point. in Norfolk harbor, nnder considerable speed, Buddenly came in sight of a steamer just under way leaving her wharf, and heading out into the harbor towards Portsmouth. The steamer blew one whistle and kept her course. The tug replied with two whistles, and, putting her helm to starboard, to cross the steamer's bow. The steamer promptly reversed. but cotlld not' avoid a collision. Held, that the tug, haVing the steamer on her starboard side, was governed by rule 19, (Rev. St. § 4233,) and bound to keep out of the way. HeW,
ot the' IJ,'lInatllUl frota tbe lpeed ,of t.lle tur whDe .roundlng a ,Jiolpt whloh Ihut outot naVl8'l!otingthe ha.rbor beyon,d, alid that it WII ·,'thkft!Rlltinher navigation whioh prevented ber obeyIng,the rule. Bel,d, that the ; ll&feBPeed ilwhethllr It il luoh aB allowl the to oomplywlth the duty UJlOn her. HeliL that; tbe tug bl\ing clearly In faull; In running at too great .) IlIillled. and in: faUingto obe:ir the rule, ttie burden was cast upon her to eltablish on the part of the steamer. oontributing to the disaster, and, having failed to.doso, the decree of the diBtriot oourt, holding hersolel1' to blame, Ihould be afthined. ' .. ,. (Bvlza.b2tB l1IIthe CO'Urt.l
Appeal from the District CourtoNhe United Statea'for the &stem Distrietof Virginia. In Admiralty. '.. Statement by MORBtS, .District Judge: These were crosB-libelsfiled by the owners of the steamer Georgia atidthe 'owners of the Luckenbaoh to recover damages result.ing frOBl' a! collision in the harbor 'of Norfolk about 4 o'clock in the aft. ernoc)n 'of May 9, 189L :The Georgia had just left her Norfolk wharf, and ,!llS proceedingBl>utherly towll.td'B her wharf in Portsmouth. The steani..tug was coming ddwnthe river in a northerly direction. The collision occurred abotit,210 yards from the wharf, whieh the Georgia hgd just left, and both· vessels were damaged. The tug was cut into on her port bow about 30 feet from her stem, and the stem of the Georgia was broken: and twisted over from port to lltarboard. . The Georgia is'lI.Jarge passenger steanier, about 300 feet in length and 40 feet in breadth. The tug was built for ocean towing, and is 130 feet long and 2b feet in breadth. The libel of the owners of the Georgia states that :the steamer was leaving her wharf on her regular route to Portsmouth,andwasprO(leeding Ellowly, when the officer in charge saw the' tug on his port bow passing close to a steamer lying at a wharf on Town point, which projects into the river; that he signaled the tug with one whistle and the tug answered with two whistles; that, seeing the tug was advancing rapidly, he blew danger signals, and reversed the Georgia's engine to avoid her,butthe tug continued approaching under a starboard wheel, and ran violently across the Georgia's stem. The answer and cross-libel of the owners of the tug state that she was moving down the harbor, and heard one blast of a whistle as if coming from a steamer lying at a wharf below Town point and about to move from her wharf; that the tug starboarded and gave two whistles, meaning to go out further into the:riverj that immediately afterWl.'lrds the tug passed a steamer lying at the wharf on Town point, and was then able to see the Georgia, which .appeared to be hugging the western line of her wharfj that a few seconds later the Georgia was seen suddenly and rapidly to shoot out from> her wharf into the 'stream, and continued to move rapidly in that direction until a collision was inevitable, notwithstandthe tug had put her helm and had reversed her engines, and before the collision had' ov.ercome her forward motion. The district judge found that when the two steam-vessels came in view ot each other they were both under way, and that the Georsia was on the
THE STEAM TUG tUcx:ll:NBACH.
starboard side of the tug; that the situation was controlled by rule 19, (Rev. St. § 4233,) which required the tug to keep out of the way; that the tug attempted to do so by putting her helm to starboard and crossing the bows ofthe Georgia; and that her railurein the attempt and the consequent collision was due to the fact, which the <::ourt found, that while mnning in the harbor, and near'the ends of the wharves, and when about to round a projecting point of land covered with buildings, which shut out her'view. she maintained such an imprudent rate of speed that when she could see the she was so close and going so rapidly that it was doubtful, if not impossible, if any maneuver she could adopt would have enabled her to avoid the collision. The district court found that fheGeorgia had not been wanting in any proper pre" caution, and had done nothing to embarrass the tug, and was not in fault. A decree was entered awarding to the Georgia her full damages, and the owners of the tug have appealed. Robert M. H1Lghes, for appellants. White Garnett, for appellees. Before FULLER, Chief Justice, BOND, Circuit Judge, and MORRIS, District Judge. MORRIS, District Judge, (after stating thefact8 Cl8 ab01Je.) The appeal proceeds upon the ground that the district court was in error in finding (1) that the speed of the tug was excessive; (2) in holding that the situation was such thatrule 19 (Rev. St. § 4233) was applicable, and the Georgia the privileged vessel, and the duty cast upon the tug to avoid her. The appellants contend that the Georgia was moving as fast or faster than the tug, and 80 near to the wharves on the Georgia's port side that the tug could only avoid herby passing on her starboard side; that the tug attempted to do this, and gave a signal of two blasts, and put her helm to starboard, and would have succeeded had the Georgia done her part by promptly reversing; that because of the nearness of the wharves on the Georgia's port side, and the obstruction of the view by the projecting land called" Town Point,» the situation was governed by the special instructions contained in rule 24, (Rev. St. § 4233:) "In construing and obeying these rules due regard must be had to all dangers of navi/tation. and to any special circumstances.which may exist in any particular case. rendering a departure from' them necessary in order to avoid immediate danger." The testimony contained in the record convinces us that the district court correctly found that the two vessels must have been approaching each other at the rate of 10 miles an hour, or nearly 300 yards in' a minute, and we think the decided preponderance of testimony and the necessary inference from proven facts is that the tug was moving at a much greater speed than the Georgia. Aside from the weight of the direct testimony of witnesses apparently disinterested and not connected with either vessel, who state that the speed of the tug in passing Town point was so unusual as to attract attention, it must be conceded that the place of collision was only about 210 yards from the wharf from which the
Georgia had just cast oft' her stern line. She had been lying in the dock'Yitb her bow inshore, !lnd had backed to the end of the dock, and upon'a line fast to the end of the wharf had swung around until her bow was in the stream, when sheclI-st off the line, and started ahead. As the 100 yards long, the, distance to the place of collision was only about twice her length, and it is highly improbable, if not impossible,that she could have attained more than steerage way. Witnesses estimate that the tug, in passing Town point, was making 10 miles an hour, but it is,of (fourse, unnecessary to determime how fast she was,going. to determine whether her speed was impr1;ldent or not. safe speed is wbetherit is such as allows the vessel to comply The, with the. duty imposed upon her, and to avoid collrsion with other vesseIsin thesitua.tions in which she may reasonably expect to find them. , The Favorita, 18 Wall. 598. On a calm, clear day, in a harbor not affected by current or tide, and n9t crowded, with nothing to embarrass her except the well-known projection in the outline of the wharves, the tug collided with a vessel not over two lengths from the, wharf she had just been fast to, aud the tug's defense is that coming around the she suddenly found herself in such a situation with respect to the other vessel that no sailing rules were applicable, aud a collision was' inevitable unless the other vessel at once backed into her dock. The explanation of the danger of the aituation, in our judgment, is to be found in the imprudent speed of the tug while rounding so near to the wharves on Towu ' The testhnony, of the master of the tug is not reconcilable with the facts. , ,lIe testifies that just as. he neared Town point he one blast. of a whistle,,from around the point, indicating to him that some .steam-vessp,l was casting oft'her lines to movp, from her wharf; that presently, when he had rounded the point sufficiently to see the Georgia, he saw her about 800 feet off, apparently lying at her wharf; that he, blew two blasts and put his wheel a-starboard to go furout into the river, al1d saw the Georgia moving along parallel to the wharves and so close to them on her port side that the tug could riot pass between her and them; that, notwithstanding his own original course was, as he claims, over .100 feet off from the wharves, and that under his starboard helm he changed his course six points, the Georgia changed her course and shot out into the river at a speed of at least four miles an hour, and ran down the tug. The statement that the Georgia was first seen apparently stationary, and then proceeding along the line of the wharves, cannot be reconciled with the fact that her bow was so quickly afterwards 200 yards out in the river, aud there collided with the tug, which claims to have started from a point 100 feet from the wharves, and to have been running away from them under a hard a-port helm. The mate of the tug, who was at the wheel in the pilot-house,. tljstifies that he heard the signal Qf one blast as they were rounding the point, and presently saw the Georgia corning out from her wharf, and then the tug blew two blasts, and starboarded her helm and stopped and revenled full speed astern; that. when he first saw the Georgia her stern
T.HE STEAM TUG LUCKENBACH.
was very near the ,wharf and her bows a little off in the stream, and parently just beginning to move out; that she was on the tug's starboard bow, and ll,ppeared to keep her course; that shesonnded danger signals soon after the tug blew two whistles. He claims, also, that the tug, at the moment of collision, had stopped her headway, and was nearly still in the water. This testimony of the mate of the tug supports the finding that the Georgia was heading out into the stream, and was just under headway, and was on the tug's starboard side when seen by her. It puts the two steamers in the position of crossing vessels with the Georgia on the starboard side of the tug, with a duty imposed upon the tug by rule 19 to keep out of the way. No doubt the tug did reverse, but the statement that she had lost her headway is refuted by the fact that by the collision the Georgia's bow was violently twisted from port to starboard. If, however, we were to adopt the view urged by the appellants, that although the Georgia was on the tug's starboard side this did not arise from the courses upon which the vessel was proceeding, but, merely from the fact that the tug was rounding a projecting wharf, and that the two steamers are to be considered as vessels maneuvering at close quarters about the wharves of a harbor, not governed by rule 19, but eadi equally obliged to avoid the other, we are not able to see that the tug is placed in any 1:>etter plight. Under euch circumstances her speed would be still more imprudent. Special attention is directed to the caution required to be exercised in such a situation by the note to pilot rule 8: "N.B. l'he foregoing rules are to be complied with in all cases except when steamers are naVigating in a crowded channel or in the vicinity of wharves; under such circumstances steamers must be run and managed with great caution, sounding the whistle as may be necessary to guard against collision or other accidents. It The aPPellants invoke rule 24 (Rev. St. § 4233) as justifying their not obeying rule 19, but it is apparent, we think, that the only danger of navigation was created by the tug Town point,with notice that a vessel was leaving her wharf, at such a rate of speed that she was unable promptly to control her movements, and was obliged to attempt to run across the other vessel's bows. Further discussion is unnecessary to show that the district court was right in holding the tug in fault. The appellants contend that the Georgia was in fault in that (1) she did not back promptly as soon as there was risk of collision; (2) that she had no proper lookout; (3) that her signal of one whistle was improper. It is true that the specially designated lookout of the Georgia was aft, attending to taking in the stern line on which the steamer had swung around into the river, but there is no ground for the contention that the tug' was not seen by the first officer and by the quartermaster in the wheelchouse as soon as she could be seen around the bows of the steamer which was lying up stream at the Town point wharf. The steamer had just then started ahead, and she at once blew a signal of one whistle as soon as they saw the tug, having previously given a short blast when the line was to be cast off. The signal of one whistle must
have been given as soon as it was possible for thos6on the Georgia to see the tug,because it was heard by the 'officers of the tug before they fully saw the. Georgia. The collision cannot, 'therefore, be attributed to the .want of 'a spadal lookoliton the Georgia. When the signal of one .whistle .was given by the Georgia she was gatkering headway on her course, which was about S. by W.,while the tug was apparently on a course about N. W. by N., and about 300 yards off on the Georgia's .port .bow. It wils the duty of the Georgia to hold her course, and the signal of one whistle meantihat her course was to starboard with referlence to the tug, and away from the wharves, and thnt she would keep jit. As the space between the Georgia and the wharves was constantly :widening, there was no reason for those in charge of her to suppose that, lif the tug was going at 8 prudent speed, there would not be space be. tween the Georgia's stern and the wharves for the tug to pass. There jwas nothing, therefore, misleading in the signal. Those in charge of 'the tug were not misled by it, but, after hearing it, and before they fully made out the movement and course of the Georgia, starboarded and blew their signal of two whistles. It was then that the danger of collision WlU! first apparent to those on the Georgia, and they promptly reversed her engines full speed astern. The appellants contend that the direction ,of the cut into the tug's bow shows that the tug, at the time of collision, !had stopped, and that the Georgia was going ahead, and therefore had :not promptly reversed, but the direct proof is too strong to be overcome !by inferences drawn from the testimony on that subject. The immedi. :fI,te and primary cause of the collision was the imprudent speed of the Itug and her want of caution in rounding Town point so close to the wharves. The burden is upon her to establish some fault or neglect on the part of the Georgia. contributing to the disaster, and this, we fl.gree 'with the district court, the appellants have not succeeded in doing. The decree of the court below is affirmed, with interest and costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellants.
'D. THE DORIS ECKHOFll'.
(O£rcuit Court of Appeals, Second Cwcuit. January 18,1899.)
CoLLISION-TUGS AND Tows-RESPONSIBILITY OP Tow.
A bark and a schooner were each on a hawser in tow of a tug in the East river. Each towhad her master and crew aboard, who, however were not taking charge of her navigation, but, on the contrary, were receiving and obeying orders from the . tugs, and each tow was following in thewako of her tug. Tile tugs, however, were not in the middle of· the East river, as required by statute, but were near the shore. The bark and the schqoner came in collision by reason of fault on 'thepartof the tugs, neither tihe bark nor schooner doing anything to contribute to the collision. Hllld, that the tows Were not. ohargeable with participation in the fault of the tugs in navigating in a forbidden part of the river. 89 Fed. Rep. 555, atlirmed.