Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 F.2d 377

Docket Nos. 62-64.

The Defender

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 1, 1926.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1926-11-01

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1983

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1926-11-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶11. Towage <@=>11 (I).

¶2Tug, greatly deviating from compass course in short distance, held not managed with ordinary care.

¶32. Towage <@=»I2(I).

¶4Boats in tow cannot be held at fault for injuries because of deviation from course, since they could not have affected drift of tow, if they had attempted to steer.

¶5Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the. Northern District of New York.

¶6Separate libels by Joseph Leonard, by Henry Patnode, and by William Malia against the steam tug Defender, her engines, etc.; Lake Champlain Transportation Company, claimant. Decrees for libelants, and claimant appeals.

¶7Affirmed.

¶8O. A. Dennis, of Whitehall, N. Y., for appellant.

¶9Maeklin, Brown & Van Wyek, of New York City (Paul Speer, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

¶10Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MACK, Circuit Judges.

¶11PER CURIAM.

¶12[1,2] We are of opinion that the tug was not managed with ordinary skill, because steering by compass she deviated from her course so greatly in so short a distance. We think no fault is attributable to the boats in tow that were injured, because, if they had attempted to steer, they could not have affected the drift of the tow. We think the testimony for the boats Catherine and Fallon was sufficient to show that they received some injuries on the reef off Valeour Island.

¶13Decrees affirmed, with costs.

/15/f2d/377 · .json · Public domain