Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. v. Luckenbach

120 F. 556, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 369
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 10, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 120 F. 556 (Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. v. Luckenbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co. v. Luckenbach, 120 F. 556, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 369 (E.D.N.Y. 1903).

Opinion

THOMAS, District Judge.

September 3, 1900, the Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company, claimant in the above proceedings for limitation of liability, and libelant in the above action, by Catt, its president, engaged the Messrs. Ruckenbach to tow a dredge and scow, by the ocean route, from Wilmington, Del., to the mouth of the Potomac, at the agreed price of $450, with an additional $150 if delivered. at Washington. September 10th, Edgar F. Ruckenbach advised Catt that the tug Ruckenbach, intended for the service, was disabled. Thereupon Ruckenbach, in his own name and without disclosing the libelant, engaged the tug Moran, of the Moran Towing Company, to tow the dredge to Washington for $600, and he reported accordingly to Catt. Ruckenbach claims that he made this contract at Catt’s request, while the latter insists that it was done upon the responsibility of Ruckenbach, and without notice to him that the tug Moran did not belong to the Ruckenbach firm, although he admits notice of the disability of the tug Ruckenbach, the request on his part that Ruckenbach should find another tug, and‘that the latter [558]*558reported the substitution of the Moran. September nth the tug Moran started for, and September 12th arrived at, Wilmington, where her master, Ellis, discovered that a large scow was to accompany the dredge, and reported the fact to his principal. Catt, Luckenbach, and Moran communicated, and Catt learned that Luckenbach had engaged the tug Moran to tow the dredge only. Moran insisted upon additional compensation for towing the scow without risk, and upon such terms he started the tow. At this time at least Catt knew that Moran had been employed by Luckenbach, but his negotiation for another tug at Baltimore, his conduct of the whole transaction, and the conversations, lead to the conclusion that Catt did not intend to look to Luckenbach as the principal. But the neglect of Luckenbach to advise Moran that the scow was part of the tow induced Moran to send his tug to Wilmington, expecting to tow the dredge alone, and resulted in the latter disclaiming responsibility for the scow.

Had the agreement been that the dredge and scow, one or both, were to be towed without risk on Moran’s part, it would not exempt him or his tug from damages for injury caused through his own or his servant’s negligence. The Syracuse, 79 U. S. 167, 171, 20 L. Ed. 382; Deems v. Canal Line, 14 Blatchf. 474, 7 Fed. Cas. 348 (No. 3,736); Vanderslice v. The Superior, 26 Fed. Cas. 970 (No. 16,843); Williams v. The Vim, 29 Fed. Cas. 1413 (No. 17,744a); The Jonty Jenks (D. C.) 54 Fed. 1021, Coxe, J., March 16, 1893. But this rule does not preclude consideration of the fact, as bearing upon the owner’s privity or knowledge, that he was induced to agree to equip his tug for one burden, sent the tug to Wilmington for such service, was there without an opportunity to adjust his equipment to the superimposed duty of taking the scow, and was urged to start the tow in haste. Hence, on Thursday, September 13th, the undertaking began with towing lines that, under the conditions of weather at times ensuing, proved inadequate for the two vessels, however adequate they may have been for towing the dredge alone. The dredge was, in draft, shape, weight, and superstructure, difficult of navigation, especially in seriously disturbed waters. Her tendency was to flounder rather than to founder. The picture, which does not show the true height of her smokestack, will aid the description.

For the purposes of the voyage planking had been nailed outside of the house, so as to come within 18 inches of the top, and about one foot from the edge of the lower deck. The dredge was about 116 feet long, with 35 feet beam. Her sides were square, 9 feet deep, bottom flat, and ends nearly upright. At the working end, the part aft in towing, there was an open cut into the structure, called the ladder well, about 18 feet long and 12 feet athwart ships, the framework ladder at the outer, and carried a revolving cutter cage which could be raised or lowered by machinery. The ladder frame filled the well, and was at the outer end supported by wire tackle running over a high framework, by which it could be raised or dropped for dredging. On the tow, the ladder dragged in the water, being about two-thirds submerged. Thus ranged horizontally, the ladder projected about 22 feet from the after ends of the dredge;

[559]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Petition of Porter
272 F. Supp. 282 (S.D. Texas, 1967)
Harris Structural Steel Co. v. S. C. Loveland Co.
45 F. Supp. 282 (E.D. New York, 1942)
Swenson v. Buffalo Barge Towing Corp.
3 F. Supp. 267 (E.D. New York, 1933)
The Betty
278 F. 220 (N.D. New York, 1922)
Maryland Transp. Co. v. Dempsey
279 F. 94 (Fourth Circuit, 1921)
Atkinson v. Scully
246 F. 463 (S.D. New York, 1917)
American Towing & Lightering Co. v. Baker-Whiteley Coal Co.
84 A. 182 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1912)
Baker-Whiteley Coal Co. v. American Towing & Lightering Co.
3 Balt. C. Rep. 157 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1911)
Alaska Commercial Co. v. Williams
128 F. 362 (Ninth Circuit, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 F. 556, 1903 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-gulf-pacific-co-v-luckenbach-nyed-1903.