Coffin v. The Osceola

30 F. 383, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMarch 14, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 F. 383 (Coffin v. The Osceola) 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
Coffin v. The Osceola, 30 F. 383, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32 (E.D.N.Y. 1887).

Opinion

Benedict, J.

If, as the libelants contend, the Spray made no sheer, the liability of the Os'Coola is clear. If, on tlie other hand, the Spray did sheer, still the Osceola was in fault, for she was the overtaking vessel, and approached dangerously near to the Spray without giving the signals required by the inspectors’ rules. Had the signal been given, or had it been proved that the Spray had been otherwise informed of the position of the Osceola, the Spray would have been in fault for changing her course when she did, but, in the absence of such signal or such knowledge, her change was not a fault.

,The libelant must Iiave a decree for his damages, with a reference to ascertain the amount.

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

Related

Youngberg v. McKeough
534 F. App'x 471 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
United Fruit S. S. Corp. v. The Pilar De Larrinaga
42 F. Supp. 648 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1942)
Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States
5 F.2d 834 (S.D. New York, 1925)
The Fleetwing
114 F. 409 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 F. 383, 1887 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffin-v-the-osceola-nyed-1887.