The Wyoming

¶1Collision (§ 95*) — Meeting Tugs with Tows — Change of Course.

¶2Tlie tug Wyoming, with three barges in tow abreast, was proceeding up East River at about 4 o’clock in the morning, while the tug Packer was coming down further to the westward, with three barges in tow tandem. By signal agreement a transfer tug with a car float crossed toward the Brooklyn shore ahead of the Wyoming, after which passing signals were exchanged between the latter and the Packer; but the Wyoming had in the meantime changed her course toward the Manhattan shore, and was unable successfully to execute her maneuver to starboard, and her port tow came into collision with one of the tows of the Packer. Held, it .appearing that it was not necessary for the Wyoming to go to the westward to avoid the transfer tug, .that she was solely in fault for changing her course when the approaching Packer should have been seen.

¶3[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Collision, Cent. Dig. §§ 200-202; Dec. Dig. § 95.*

¶4Collision with or between towing vessels and vessels in tow, see note to The John Englis, 100 C. C. A. 581.]

¶5Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; Van Vechten Veeder, Judge.

¶6Suit in admiralty for collision by Bridget Guinan and Oscar Olsen, owner and master of the scow John G„ against the steam tug. Wyoming, the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, claimant, and the tug Madison, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, claimant; also libel by the Goodwin Sand & Gravel Company, owner of the scow, against the Wyoming and the tug E. A. Packer, im-pleaded. Decree against the Wyoming, and her claimant appeals.

¶7Affirmed.

¶8'The following is the oral opinion of Veeder, District Judge:

¶9The evidence in this case shows that the Packer was coming down the East River with three barges in tow, one behind the other, and that the Wyoming was going up stream with three barges abreast on a hawser, and that the Madison came out of Pier 26 on the New York shore and crossed to the other side of the river in front of the Wyoming on a signal to that effect being given by her and answered by the Wyoming. After the Madison had crossed, and the position of the approaching tugs was disclosed, it appeared that the' Wyoming had sheered over toward the New York shore, either be*269cause she aimed to cross the river diagonally at this point to her destination above the Brooklyn Bridge on the Manhattan shore, as suggested by the libelant, or, as claimed by the Wyoming, in order to avoid the Madison, in this situation the Packer immediately gave a single whistle signal, which was promptly answered by one whistle from the Wyoming. They were so close upon each other’s courses, however, that the Wyoming was unable to carryout successfully her maneuver to starboard, and the port barge of her tow swung around and collided with the second barge of the Packer’s tow. The time was about 4 a. in. on November 10, 1910, and there was an ebb tide.

¶101 do not find any fault at all on the part of the Madison. I do not think that her crossing interfered, or should have interfered, with the navigation of the Wyoming. In other words, I believe that she crossed so far ahead of the Wyoming that it was unnecessary for the Wyoming (whether or not she did in fact do so) to change her course or speed, going as she was at very slow speed and against the tide.

¶11I do not appreciate why the Wyoming did not see the Packer before the .view was obstructed by the crossing of the Madison, if it is a fact that she did not. The lookout of the Packer says he saw the Wyoming’s red light for a considerable time before the crossing of the Madison. It is true that the Packer gave no signal at that lime; but there was no reason to believe that the Wyoming would change her course, and so long as she kept on her course off the Brooklyn shore there would be no danger. The witnesses agree that the collision took place just, below the Brooklyn Bridge, but there is conflict in the testimony as to what part of the river. I find as a fact that it happened about midstream.

¶12The proximate cause of this collision was the inability of the Wyoming to carry out a maneuver which she had undertaken to carry out in answering the Packer’s one whistle with one whistle of her own. Her inability arose from the fact that she had changed her course so far to port as to get in the course of southbound trafile. Even if she had not seen the Packer’s lights before the Madison crossed, she was not justified, under the circumstances, in going so far to port at this point in the river.

¶13From this point of view it is unnecessary to decide whether the hawser on the Wyoming’s port barge gave way before or after the collision. I find the Wyoming in fault.

¶14Decree accordingly, with reference to ascertain damages.

¶15Harrington, Bigham & Englar,' of New York City (D. R. Englar, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

¶16Eoley & Martin, of New York City (John E. Eoley and E. A. Spencer, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee the E. A. Packer.

¶17J. E. Seager, of New York City (A. J. McMahon, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.

¶18James J. Macklin, of New York City, for appellees Guinan and another.

¶19Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.