¶1Collision (§95*)—Tug and Schooner Crossing—Fault.
¶2A decree holding a tug solely in fault for a collision with a schooner on a” crossing course in the Delaware river affirmed on the findings of fact of the trial court.
¶3[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Collision, Cent. Dig. §§ 200-202; Dec. Dig. § 95.*]
¶4Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; J. Whitaker Thompson, Judge.
¶5Suit in admiralty for collision by E. Furman Smith and others, owners of the schooner Eugene Cathrall, against the tug Philadelphia; Joshua E. Tracy, claimant. Decree for libelants, and claimant appeals.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7For opinion below, see 199 Fed. 299.
¶8*937Howard M. Hong, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
¶9Willard M. Harris, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
¶10Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and McPHERSON, Circuit Judges.
¶13This is an appeal from a decree in admiralty in
¶14a case of collision. The determination of the case below involved and turned upon findings of fact as to the relative positions, just before the collision, of a schooner and tug crossing courses in the Delaware river. The court’s opinion (reported in 199 Fed. 299) sustained the schooner’s contention, and, under the rules of navigation and the law, held the tug in fault. While there is much to be said in the tug’s favor, we incline to agree with the court’s conclusion. Reference to the full and discriminating discussion by the learned judge of the court below of all the questions involved suffices to indicate our views, and we avoid mere repetition by affirming, on such opinion, the decree entered.