Britain S. S. Co. v. J. B. King Transp. Co.

Second Circuit

Britain S. S. Co. v. J. B. King Transp. Co.

131 F. 62, 65 C.C.A. 300, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4266

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1904

DocketNo. 155

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 131 F. 62 (Britain S. S. Co. v. J. B. King Transp. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Britain S. S. Co. v. J. B. King Transp. Co., 131 F. 62, 65 C.C.A. 300, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4266 (2d Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The controlling question in the case is whether or not the steamer was substantially in motion. The district judge found that, although probably still forging ahead very slightly, and drifting up a little with the flood tide, she was almost, if not quite, at a standstill, preparing to anchor, and not under way. He heard some of the important witnesses, and there is no evidence presented sufficient to warrant a reversal of that finding. The witnesses for the steamer testify that she was not in motion. The respondent’s witnesses testified that when they first saw her she was apparently at anchor, and, although subsequently they state she was in motion, they yet admit that they did not see her moving through the water, and apparently infer merely that she must have been in motion because collision ensued. The steamer was practically a vessel not under way, was seen to be such by the navigators of the tug, and was so seen at a distance amply sufficient to enable the latter to avoid collision, had they not undertaken to shave too close.

The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The controlling question in the case is whether or not the steamer was substantially in motion. The district judge found that, although probably still forging ahead very slightly, and drifting up a little with the flood tide, she was almost, if not quite, at a standstill, preparing to anchor, and not under way. He heard some of the important witnesses, and there is no evidence presented sufficient to warrant a reversal of that finding. The witnesses for the steamer testify that she was not in motion. The respondent’s witnesses testified that when they first saw her she was apparently at anchor, and, although subsequently they state she was in motion, they yet admit that they did not see her moving through the water, and apparently infer merely that she must have been in motion because collision ensued. The steamer was practically a vessel not under way, was seen to be such by the navigators of the tug, and was so seen at a distance amply sufficient to enable the latter to avoid collision, had they not undertaken to shave too close.

The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

Marine Fuel Transfer Corp., as Owner of the Merry Queen and Her Cargo of Fuel Oil, Libelant-Cross-Appellant v. The Ruth, Robert B. Wathen, Claimant-Appellant. James Hughes, Inc., as Owner of the Gossan, Libelant-Appellee v. The Merry Queen, Marine Fuel Transfer Corp., Claimant-Cross-Appellant, the Ruth, Robert B. Wathen, Claimant-Appellant

231 F.2d 319 (Second Circuit, 1956)

Marine Fuel Transfer Corp. v. The Ruth

231 F.2d 319 (Second Circuit, 1956)

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States

92 F. Supp. 696 (S.D. New York, 1950)

The Mary P. Riehl

241 F. 285 (D. Maryland, 1917)

New York Central No. 18

230 F. 299 (E.D. New York, 1916)

The Ruth

186 F. 87 (Ninth Circuit, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. 62, 65 C.C.A. 300, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britain-s-s-co-v-j-b-king-transp-co-ca2-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack