PJ>ERAL REPORTER ,voL' 50.
THE ANNIE HALL
et ale ".
Court. D. Mcu.aMm6tt&
May 50, 1892.)
WIUBVEll Al'lD WIlABPINGl!IBll,....()BSTBUOTION-LUllILITT OJ' Wll:ABPINGBB.
,A schooner drawing llfeet 8 inches, loaded with'coalowned by and consigned to the. respondents underabill of lading guarantying to her generally 12 feet of water, arnved at respondents' dook. One of the respondents was present at the schooner's arrival, but said nothing 1;0 the master. The latter was unacquainted with the obstructions and the tides at the place. The schooner struck a ledge of rock on which at average tides the water was 12 feet deep; Respondents did not own the bed of the r.ve.r,but dredged it, and occupied and used the wharf to berth vessels. Hel,d" that the master had a right to rely on the respondent who was. present, and his si, lenOe. BlIlounted to aD expresslnvitation to enter. Hel,d" therefore, that respondents were liable.
, InAdrniralty. Libel by Samuel P. Hall and others against Joel F. apd others for damages occasioned by stranding at respondents\ Wharf., Decree for libelants. Edwa.rd, S. Dodge, for libelants. Cunningham, for respondents.
,NEUlON, District Judge. This is a libel in per80nam by the owners of the Annie R. Lewis for injuries sustained by the schooner in ehterii),gthe respondents' dock. The respondents are coal dealers, and own' a wharf on Monatiquot river, in East Braintree, at the head where they receive the delivery of cargoes of coal from vessels. On the early morning of June 22, 1886, the Annie R. Lewis, from Port J()hpson, arrived in the river below the wharf, in charge of a pilot an'd'atoW'b()at, having on board a cargo of 355 tons of coal consigned to and Qwneq by the respondtmts, to be unloaded on the wharf. The bill of lading 'guaranteed 12 feet of water. The draft of the schooner was 11 feet ipches aft. In the bottom of the river a ledge of rocks extended frorn.the,lower end of the wharf, across the channel, to the opposite bank. On I1verage tides the depth of water on the rock was 12 feet, but when the tides, ,lun low the depth was not sufficient to float vessels drawing 11 feet 8 inclles. This was known to th!"respondents. ,The master of the B,choonei was unacquainted with the obstructions in'the channel, and also "i'ith the run of the tides in the river. The tide on this morning was l'owe:( the a"erage. One of the respondents was present on the wharf; time, what was going Qn. The channel was aoolit 50'feet wide. While the tug was attempting to haul the schooner , in,to her the wharf, where the coal was to be unloaded, the tide oemg then at its full height, she grounded on the ledge,apd sustained injury. The respondents claim that the attempt to enter was made after the tide had ebbed considerably; also that the guaranty in the bill of lading extended only to average tides. Reference was made to the tide tables at Boston, to show that the tide was on the ebb. But tides in this narrow and crooked river, so far above the sea, must vary
from the tides at Boston, and must also be affected by the flow of the current from above. The guaranty. in terms, extends to all tides, and is not limited to average tides. The master, being ignorant of the channel, had the right to rely on the judgment of the respondent who was present. and, receiving no warning of the danger from him, to assume that the \Vater was sufficient for his Tessel. The silence of the respondent, under the circumstances, was equivalent to an assurance that the depth of water was sufficient, and amounted to an express invitation to enter. The circumstance that the respondents did not own the title to the bed of the river is immaterial, since they dredged it out, and occupied it, and used it as a berth for vessels unloading coal. The case of The Calliope, (1891,) App. Cas. 11, cited by the respondents, is not hi point. In that case there was no guaranty of depth of water, and no invitation to enter, and the court expressly found that the grounding of the vessel was caused by the negligence of the master and pilot, and exonerated the wharfinger on that account. Upon the facts as found. the respondents are responsible for the injury to the schooner. The John A. Bf/fkman, 6 Fed. Rep. 535; Higgins v. Gaslight (b.,33 Fed. Rep. 295. Decree for libelants.
THE STROMA. NAPIER
SHIPPnl'G Co., Limited; ".
(Cwcuit Court qf Appeals. Second Cwcuit. February 16, 1892.)
WBJ.BVES AND WJU.BftNGIIBS-<JBsTBUCTION-KNOWLIIDGB-LIJ.BILITY.
Libelant's steamer was berthed at respondent's wharf. alongside of which lay a sunken wreck. The presence of the wreck was known both to respondent's agent and to the of libelant, who applied for the berth. There was no understanding, express or implied, relieving the respondent from the ordinary obligations of a wharfinger, except the implied obligation on the steamer to go to the particular berth assigned. Respoudent's agent saw the steamer at the wharf discharging, but made no objection to the berth. The steamer was afterwards injured by tlie .uuken wreck. and sank in the slip. Held, that the steamer's agent was justified iu assuming that respondeut's agent had better iuformation than he had as to the couditiou of respoudent's premises aud in relyiug and acting upou such assumption; aud that as a wharfing-er, in accommodatious for hire, the eut impliedly agreed that the steamer would not be exposed to danger arisiug from coucealed obstructions knowu to Its ageut, aud which the steamer was uot reqUired to Buticipate; that respoudent therefore was liable for the iujury done the steamer. 42 Fed. Rep. 922, reversed.
In Admiralty. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States. for the southern district of .N.ew York, affirming pro farma a decree of the district court of the United States for the said district, dismissing the libel. Reversed. Butler, Stillman &; HUbbard, (Wilhelmua Myndf/fBe, ofcounsel,) for II.ppel. Iant. Coudert Bros., (Frederick R. Coudert, of counsel,) for appellee. Before \VALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges.