Day v. Albertson

67 F. 158, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2733
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJanuary 9, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 F. 158 (Day v. Albertson) 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
Day v. Albertson, 67 F. 158, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2733 (2d Cir. 1895).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves questions of fact only. The testimony in the record is extremely conflicting, and inasmuch as the witnesses were examined in the presence of the district judge, and the value of their testimony depends wholly upon their credibility, and there is no decided preponderance upon either side, we should not be justified in disturbing his conclusions. After a careful examination of the testimony, we are satisfied that the dock line of the Oneida was not cut by the master of the Wide Awake, but parted because it was unable to resist the extraordinary tension of the Oneida and the other boats of the tow, to which it'ought not to have been exposed. After this line parted one of the two lines by which the Oneida was made fast to the Wide Awake also parted; and it was then, in a time of great excitement, and when there was danger that the Wide Awake herself would be injured unless she was detached from the Oneida, that the captain of the Wide Awake cut the remaining line. We are not entirely satisfied that he did this pursuant to any supposed request from the master of the tug or of the Oneida; but, however this may be, it was not a wanton or a negligent act upon his part, but one which he believed, and had a right to believe was necessary for the safety of his own vessel. The master of the tug was responsible for the whole situation. The decree of the court below properly exonerated the Wide Awake, and adjudged the tug solely in fault for the injuries to the libelants’ schooner. Accordingly, it is affirmed, with interest and costs.

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

Related

McWilliams Bros. v. Davis
285 F. 312 (Second Circuit, 1922)
James McWilliams Blue Line v. Payne
273 F. 622 (E.D. New York, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F. 158, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-albertson-ca2-1895.