THE WM. N.'

303

wecause such a movement would have brought her in collision with vessels on the outside of her. Such a state of facts might easily occur, and in such a case stopping would be the only method of avoiding collision with a vessel ahead coming out from the piers. Ability to stop within a reasonable distance is therefore a necessity to navigation, under such circumstances as are proved in this case. I entertain great doubt as to the truthof the assertion that there was no room for the American Eagle to avoid the steamer by porting; but, if she.oQuld·not port,she was bound to stop. I find no fault on the 'part ofthaBabcock.. ' Let the libelant have a decree against the American Eagle, and let the libel be dismissed as against the Babcock.

THE

DRAKE

WM.

N. BEACH.1

N. BEACH.

1886.)

v.

THE WM.

Oourt. E. D. New ,York· .

,'OJ'

CoLL1S10N-.FLOATING LOGS-ABSENcE OF LIGHT-PASSING TUG-ENTANGLING

.., . ". . '. . .' : logs to rem.ainfioating in the water iilong-sidehi8 derrick, with no li,gllt uI;>0n them.. ;rnthe, night tlie propeller of a passing tug"whose . pilot hlid no knowledge of the P1eseilce of the logs. caught in the log$,'whereby was d&Diaged.On suit brought against the tug lor the damage, thllt she wasuot liable. .

8citm",:"

• libelant. .E.1!.,Mcqa:fthY; for olaimants.
  

In Admiralty.

De

, BENEDioT,' J. In such a locnlityas this, in the Harlem river, it was not negligence 'in the pilot the WilliamN. Beach to allow the sterIi of his boat to approach within 16 feet of the libelant's dsrrick, then fasttothe shore. As the tide was, and as the tug was handIed,Wis plain that no injury would have been done to the libelant's property there, if'. the screw of the tug had not caught in sotrieplles which the lioelant had placed and allowed to remain floating. in the water along-side his derrick.. It was in the: libelant· to leave these piles where theywere when the tug's propeller was caught and'. by them, and· this negligence was the t,he ages corlipiaiintJd of. There was DO negligence oil tbepal1'Oftlt1et'ug in the water.. No light ,h1ad been' jn failing to ".ee the piles plaeedupon them. 'The- pilot·Of the tug badIiQ knowledge of their presence, nor any reason to suspect tHeir presenee r there.; The libel !ith cQsts. ,

of

",.",

"

.','

'.

',.

"

,""",:.·'..,.

I,

lReported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

804

FEDERAL REPORTER.

.

THE AMERICA.l

MORAN

v.

THE AMERICA.

(DiBtrict (Jourt, E. D. NeUJ York.

June 22, 1886.)

PIERS-ATTEMPT TO PASS

L

The tug 1I. was lying at rest in the East river, some 150 feet from the line of the piers, when the tug A., comIng down the river, ported in an attempt to pass· between the M. and the piers, and collided with the M. Held that, ifthe original course of the A. would have carried her'outside of the M., the A. was in fault for porting. The A. insisted that her porting was when ,the vessels were close together. and collision was inevitable. Held, in that event, that the A. was in fault for not starboarding in time to pass outside of the M.; and, in either view, the A. was solely responsible for the collision. 2. BAME-VESSEL AT REST-ApPLICABILITY OF RULE 19. Rule 19 does not apply where the vessel having the other on her starboard hand is at rest.

COLLISION-Two TuGS-ONE AT REST NEAR INSIDE-FAULT.

LINE OF

In Admiralty.

Oarpenter d; Mosher, for libelant. Biddle d; Ward, for claimants.

.

BENEDICT, J. Under the existing circumstances, clearly proved, it was the duty of the America to pass under the stern of the Ida. Miller, and not across her bow. I incline to the opinion that the course of the America, when the Ida. Miller was seen by her, would have carried her astern of the Ida Miller, and that the immediate cause of the collision was a change from this course, effected by porting ihe wheel in an effort to pass between the Jda Miller and Pier 4. If such be the fact, the fault of the America which caused the collision was porting her wheel. But if it is true, as insisted in behalf of the America, that the porting of her wheel was when the vessels were close together, and collision inevitable, then, in my opinion, the America was at fault for not starboarding hel' wheel so as to carry her further out into the river, and astern of the Ida Miller, seen by het to have backed off Pier 4, and to be at rest in the river. Rule 19 is not applicable in a case like this. The Ida Miller came to a. When seen to be so at rest, common prudence on the part of the America,as it appears to me, would have prevented an attempt to pass astern of the Ida Miller, when, by holding her course, or, at most, by a, tur.n of her wheel to starboard, she would have passed astern oftheJda Miller, and at, the same time assu,med her proper "' ,, , " course in the river. entered in favor of the libelant, with an order of reference to, ascertain damages. .
I

Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict,

Esqs., altha New York