Marsellus v. The Raritan

E.D. New York

Marsellus v. The Raritan

42 F. 191, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139

DecidedApril 16, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 42 F. 191 (Marsellus v. The Raritan) 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

Marsellus v. The Raritan, 42 F. 191, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139 (E.D.N.Y. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

These actions arose out of a collision that occurred in the East River in the daylight. The case turns upon the question of fact whether the L. P. Dayton, after she had moved out her float into the stream, hacked her float so as to close up the passage through which the Raritan was passing, whereby the Raritan was brought in contact with the stern of the float. Upon this question of fact the evidence fails to show to my satisfaction that the Dayton backed as is claimed. I incline to the opinion that the cause of the collision was that the Raritan, in taking her course through the gap between the Dayton and the Willie, assumed that the Dayton would move ahead by the time the Raritan would reach her. When this assumption failed, the Raritan necessarily brought up against the stern of the float, and so the damage arose.

In the case of Marsellus against' the Raritan and Dayton, the libelant must have a decree against the barge Raritan, and the libel against the L. P. Dayton must be dismissed.

In the case of the transportation company against the L. P. Dayton, the libel must be dismissed.

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

Benedict, J.

These actions arose out of a collision that occurred in the East River in the daylight. The case turns upon the question of fact whether the L. P. Dayton, after she had moved out her float into the stream, hacked her float so as to close up the passage through which the Raritan was passing, whereby the Raritan was brought in contact with the stern of the float. Upon this question of fact the evidence fails to show to my satisfaction that the Dayton backed as is claimed. I incline to the opinion that the cause of the collision was that the Raritan, in taking her course through the gap between the Dayton and the Willie, assumed that the Dayton would move ahead by the time the Raritan would reach her. When this assumption failed, the Raritan necessarily brought up against the stern of the float, and so the damage arose.

In the case of Marsellus against' the Raritan and Dayton, the libelant must have a decree against the barge Raritan, and the libel against the L. P. Dayton must be dismissed.

In the case of the transportation company against the L. P. Dayton, the libel must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 F. 191, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsellus-v-the-raritan-nyed-1890.