Conover v. The John S. Darcy

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Conover v. The John S. Darcy

38 F. 619, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMarch 25, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 F. 619 (Conover v. The John S. Darcy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conover v. The John S. Darcy, 38 F. 619, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182 (circtsdny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

The decision of the district judge holding both vessels in fault is affirmed. Such affirmance, however, is not to be taken as an assent to the proposition that the ferry-boats at the Twenty-Third street ferry have “the exclusive use of the clear water about 108 feet in width, between the Twenty-Second street pier and the lower ferry-rack.” The fact that a ferry-boat lays such an “ordinary and usual course” as will bring her within 10 to 20 feet of the corner of a pier, not itself the boundary of her slip, “hugging it as closely as she can,” (as the witnesses put it,) is not sufficient to give any exclusive or superior rights to the occupation of so much of the water area, surrounding the pier as may be required for the uses to subserve which it was erected. The Mary Powell, 36 Fed. Rep. 598.

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

Lacombe, J.

The decision of the district judge holding both vessels in fault is affirmed. Such affirmance, however, is not to be taken as an assent to the proposition that the ferry-boats at the Twenty-Third street ferry have “the exclusive use of the clear water about 108 feet in width, between the Twenty-Second street pier and the lower ferry-rack.” The fact that a ferry-boat lays such an “ordinary and usual course” as will bring her within 10 to 20 feet of the corner of a pier, not itself the boundary of her slip, “hugging it as closely as she can,” (as the witnesses put it,) is not sufficient to give any exclusive or superior rights to the occupation of so much of the water area, surrounding the pier as may be required for the uses to subserve which it was erected. The Mary Powell, 36 Fed. Rep. 598.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. 619, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conover-v-the-john-s-darcy-circtsdny-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack