¶11. Collision <©=>115 — 'That lines holding boat to which tug ran a line in maneuvering grain elevator could not stand strain and parted held to impose no liability on such boat for resulting damage done by grain elevator while drifting within wind.
¶2Where steam tug, attempting to maneuver grain elevator to alongside steamer, ran line to boat tied alongside barge on opposite side of slip, so as to use her as a fulcrum around which to shift and warp grain elevator, fact that lines of boat holding it to barge would not stand the added strain and parted, permitting elevator to be carried across slip by the wind, to the damage of the steamer’s propeller with which it collided, imposed no liability on boat so used.
¶32. Collision <§=»II5 — Boat held not entitled to cut, without notice, line which she permitted tug to run to her in maneuvering grain elevator, though she was not liable for acts of third persons throwing off lines holding her, permitting her to drift.
¶4Where boat, made fast alongside barge, which in turn was made fast to steamer, without objection permitted tug to run a line -to her to aid in maneuvering grain elevator, she had no right, without notice, to cut the line so made fast on her, on theory that tug was a trespasser, but was not liable for acts of third persons in throwing off lines from barge to her or from steamer to barge.
¶53. Admiralty <g=»59.
¶6Strictness of pleading required at common law is not required in admiralty.
¶74. Collision 119 — Petition of libeled tug, impleading boat to which she ran a line in maneuvering grain elevator and barge to which boat was made fast, alleging “that some one threw off or slacked their lines,” causing damage, held insufficient (admiralty rule 56).
¶8Petition of libeled steam tug, impleading under admiralty rule 56 boat to which it ran a line to aid in maneuvering grain elevator and barge to which boat was made fast, alleging “that some one threw off or slacked their lines,” causing grain elevator to be carried by wind across slip and inflict damage, held subject to exception, since boat was liable only if its lines were thrown off without warning by its captain or by his orders or with his consent, not for acts of third persons.
¶9In Admiralty. Libel by tbe Navigazione Libera Triestina Soeieta in Azioni against tbe steam tug Russell No. 3, wbicb impleaded tbe boats Atlantic 54 and Sailor Jack. On exceptions of tbe boat Sailor Jack to tbe petition impleading it.
¶10Exceptions sustained, and petition dismissed.
¶11Loomis & Ruebush, of New York City, for libelant.
¶12Alexander & Ash, of New York City, for steam tug Russell.
¶13Leo J. Curren, of New York City, for claimant of Sailor Jack.
¶15Tbis is a motion to overrule tbe exceptions filed herein by tbe boat Sailor Jack to tbe petition filed by tbe steam tug Russell No. 3 to implead tbe Sailor J ack under tbe Fifty-Sixtb rule in admiralty.
¶16Tbe Sailor Jack contends that tbe facts averred in the petition are insufficient to constitute a cause of action against her.
¶17Tbe facts as alleged, briefly, are that the Sailor J ack lay outside of tbe barge Atlantic 54, wbicb lay alongside and was made fast to tbe starboard quarter of tbe steamer Chickasaw, which lay bow in with her portside to tbe pier.
¶18The Russell No. 3 brought in tbe grain elevator Oswego, and, in attempting to maneuver tbe Oáwego so that she could be placed alongside tbe Isonzo II, a steamer that lay alongside tbe pier on the opposite side of tbe slip, ran a line to tbe Sailor Jack so as to use her as a fulcrum around which to shift and warp tbe Oswego.
¶19Tbe petition alleges:
“Instead of tbe Sailor Jack and the barge Atlantic 54 bolding their positions alongside of tbe steamer Chickasaw, they shifted away therefrom, either by tbe fact that some one threw off or slacked their lines, ór that tbe lines were improperly made fast or parted, as tbe result of wbicb tbe grain elevator was carried by tbe then strong wind across tbe slip.”
¶20Tbe Oswego came into contact with tbe propeller blade of the Isonzo II and damaged tbe same.
¶21[1] If tbe lines of tbe Sailor Jack were unable to stand tbe added strain of tbe Oswego, that would have imposed no liability on tbe Sailor Jack, as it was tbe duty of tbe Russell No. 3 to have ascertained whether tbe lines were sufficient when she ran tbe line from tbe Oswego to tbe Sailor Jack. McWilliams Bros. v. Davis (C. C. A.) 285 F. 312, 315; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. James McWilliams Towing Line (C. C. A.) 277 F. 798.
¶22In any event tbe Sailor Jack cannot be held liable for any act of tbe Atlantic 54.
¶23[2] I do not bold with the proctor for the Sailor Jack that tbe Oswego was a trespasser and that tbe Sailor Jack bad tbe right, without notice, to cut tbe line which was made fast on her, but that the line having been made fast to her without objection on her part, tbe *643Oswego became a mere licensee and tbe Sail- or J aek was not liable to tbe Oswego or Isonzo II for the act of third persons in throwing off the lines from the Atlantic 54 to the Chickasaw, or from the Sailor Jack to the Atlantic 54 or the Chickasaw. Carfloat C—4 (D. C.) 300 F. 757, 1924 A. M. C. 244, affirmed (C. C. A.) 300 F. 761; The Beeko (The May) (D. C.) 10 F.(2d) 884, 1926 A. M. C. 164.
¶24The Oswego being a licensee, the Sailor Jack would not have the right, without warning the Oswego of her purpose, to east off her own lines and shift away from the steamer Chickasaw, carrying the Oswego across the slip, but she could only be held liable for the act of her captain or some one acting under his orders or with his consent.
¶25[3,4] While I realize that the same strictness in pleading is not required in admiralty as at common law (The West Keats, 1924 A. M. C. 104), yet it does not seem to me that, where liability can be found as to the Sailor Jack only by showing that she was allowed to shift out without warning to the Oswego, by the act of her captain or some one acting under his orders or with his consent, and could under no condition be liable for the unauthorized acts of third persons, a good cause of action is not alleged when in the fifth allegation of the petition it is alleged, “that some one threw off or slacked their lines,” because, in order to allege a good cause of action, it should be alleged that the line was thrown off by the captain of the Sailor Jack, or by his orders or with his consent, without warning to the Oswego.
¶26The motion to overrule the exceptions is denied, the exceptions are sustained, and the petition dismissed, without costs.