Kennedy v. Anderson-Tully Co.

102 F.2d 340, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3847, 1939 A.M.C. 845
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided March 9, 1939·No. No. 7665·Published

Opinion

HICKS, Circuit Judge.

The Wolf River flows through the northern part of Memphis and into the Mississippi at the foot of ■ Beale Street. It has a drainage area of about seven hundred seventy-five miles extending east-wardly for a distance of more than seventy miles. C. E. Kennedy, doing buiness as C. E. Kennedy Dry Dock Company (herein called Kennedy), and engaged in the business of docking, building and repairing boats at the foot of Beale Street, had a large part of its equipment of various sorts moored to the bank of Wolf River at that point. ,

Appellant, Minneapolis Dredging Company (herein called Minneapolis), was engaged in widening, deepening and aligning Wolf River and had a dredge called “No. 2” moored to the west bank opposite Market Street. Anderson-Tully Company had a large saw mill on the east bank about a mile and a half above Dredge No. 2. The -principal business of Patton-Tully [341] Transportation Company (herein called Tully) was to do the river work, such as handling logs, etc., for the Anderson-Tully Company. B. C. Tully was President of both companies.

Tully had a fleet of barges lashed as a unit and moored to the west bank opposite the Anderson-Tully plant. On Monday, January 21, 1935, about 1:15 P. M. this fleet broke from its moorings, drifted down the river and striking Dredge No. 2 tore it from its moorings and carried it down the stream and in conjunction with other floating vessels collided with the vessels and equipment of Kennedy.

These libels were for the resultant damages. Tully denied that it was guilty of negligence; and averred that its fleet became adrift because of an unprecedented rainfall that converted the usual current of the river into an uncontrollable torrent, which violently tore its fleet from its moorings and carried it down the river with irresistible force, and that the damages suffered were the result of an unavoidable accident or vis major which could not have been foreseen and guarded against.

C. E. Kennedy having died, his cause of action was revived in the name of his administrators. Alliance Insurance Company, which carried an insurance policy for the protection of Minneapolis, intervened. The causes were consolidated and, at the hearing, were dismissed.

The court made findings of fact. It found that the collisions occurred about 1:30 P. M. on January 21st; that at Moscow, about forty miles east of Memphis, the rainfall during the twenty-four hour period preceding the 21st, was 8.52 inches, which was the greatest amount of rainfall during a similar period ever known in Tennessee during the month of January ; that this" unexpected and abnormal rainfall produced an unprecedented flood; that the river rose many feet above the highest known water mark and that its current, due to the flood, was of unprecedented velocity and suddenness; that the swift and powerful current, in excess of fifteen miles per hour, washed out the west bank to which the Tully fleet was moored a distance of from one hundred to three hundred feet back westwardly and for more than a quarter of a mile along the stream; that two large cottonwood trees, each from two and one-half to three and one-half feet in diameter, to which the principal headlines of the fleet were fastened, were washed away and that as a result the remaining mooring cables and lines were broken and the fleet broke away; that, at that time, the weather was cold, the visibility variable, there being intervals of snow and sleet, and the wind was blowing from the north and northwest.

These findings are fully supported by evidence and there is no substantial evidence to the contrary. The court further found that Tully had used such care in mooring and securing its fleet as was dictated by the practices and operations of prudent and experienced river men on the river, under similar circumstances, and that the fleet was moored to good and satisfactory fastenings, with sound and sufficient lines.

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

Kennedy v. Anderson-Tully Co., 102 F.2d 340, 1939 U.S. App. LEXIS 3847, 1939 A.M.C. 845 (6th Cir. 1939).

102 F.2d 340 (Kennedy v. Anderson-Tully Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Morning Light
69 U.S. 550 (Supreme Court, 1865)
The Louisiana
70 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court, 1866)
The Grace Girdler
74 U.S. 196 (Supreme Court, 1869)
Shepard v. Reed
26 F.2d 19 (Sixth Circuit, 1928)
The Edward Smith
135 F. 32 (Sixth Circuit, 1905)
The Jumna
149 F. 171 (Second Circuit, 1906)
The William E. Reis
152 F. 673 (Sixth Circuit, 1907)
United Fuel & Supply Co. v. Interlake S. S. Co.
272 F. 633 (Sixth Circuit, 1921)
Weeks v. Wilson Transit Co.
61 F. 120 (Sixth Circuit, 1894)
City of Cleveland v. Chisholm
90 F. 431 (Sixth Circuit, 1898)