Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

247 F. 313

Docket No. 21.

The Andreas Gerakis

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 1917.)

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1917-11-13

<p>Collision <§¡=>74—Tow and Anchored Vessel—Obstruction op Fairway. Evidence helé insufficient to sustain the allegation of libelant in a collision suit that claimant’s steamship, when struck by the tow of libel-ant’s tug, was improperly anchored where she obstructed the fairway.</p> <p><j^For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

2 counsel of record

Affirmed · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1917-11-13

¶1Collision <§¡=>74—Tow and Anchored Vessel—Obstruction op Fairway. Evidence helé insufficient to sustain the allegation of libelant in a collision suit that claimant’s steamship, when struck by the tow of libel-ant’s tug, was improperly anchored where she obstructed the fairway.

¶2Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

¶3Suit in admiralty for collision by the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company against the steamship Andreas Gerakis; S. Catevatis, claimant. Decree for claimant, and libelant appeals.

¶4Affirmed.

¶5<j^For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

¶6*314Kirlin, Woolsey & Hickox, of New York City (Cletus Keating and John M. Woolsey, both of New York City, of counsel), for claimant.

¶7Macklin, Brown & Purdy, of New York City (Pierre M. Brown, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant.

¶8Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10There is presented but one question by this appeal, and that of fact only, viz. the position of the anchored steamship, when struck by the tow of libelant’s tug. If she was substantially where the libel alleged, she unnecessarily, and therefore negligently, impeded the fairway. The burden of proving such negligence was on libelant. Upon consideration of the evidence, we are as unable as was the trial judge to fix the steamer’s position, further than to hold that she was not shown to be where the libel placed her.

¶11Therefore the court below rightly dismissed the libel for lack of proof, and the decree is affirmed, with costs.

/247/f1d/313 · .json · Public domain