The M. E. Luckenbach

¶1Collision (§ 110*) — Stranding or Tow — Proximate Cause.

¶2The stranding of a barge, which was one of three in a tow, after she had been cast off by the barge ahead, because of a slight collision with a schooner, so as to permit the schooner to pass through the tow, held due to the fault of her own master in not properly anchoring, as directed by the tug, and not to the collision.

¶3[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Collision, Cent. Dig. § 233; Dec. Dig. § 110.*]

¶4Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

¶5*572This cause comes here on appeal by libelant from a final decree of the District Court, Eastern District of New York, holding the tug M. E. Luckenbach at fault for a collision with the schooner Hugh Kelly at or near the junction of the Main Ship and Swash channels in New York Harbor. The court dismissed the libel filed, against the steam tug for negligent towage, and the petition of the claimants of said steam tug bringing in the said schooner under the fifty-ninth admiralty rule (29 Sup. Ct. xlvi), the court finding that the collision was not the proximate cause of the stranding of libelant’s barge William H. Conner, but was caused through the fault of the master of said barge-in not using ordinary care to prevent his barge from drifting and stranding.

¶6Affirmed.

¶7For opinion below, see, 200 Fed. 630.

¶8Peter Carter, of New York City, for appellant'.-

¶9Samuel Park, of New York City, for the Hugh Kelly.

¶10J. K. Symmers, of New York City, for the M. E. Luckenbach.

¶11Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.