McWilliams v. Delaware, L. & W. R.

Second Circuit

McWilliams v. Delaware, L. & W. R.

207 F. 64, 124 C.C.A. 624, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 1913

DocketNo. 260

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 F. 64 (McWilliams v. Delaware, L. & W. R.) 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

McWilliams v. Delaware, L. & W. R., 207 F. 64, 124 C.C.A. 624, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1603 (2d Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The district judge did not, as was suggested on the argument, hold that this was a case of inevitable accident; the Zouave was not brought into the case and it was not necessary to discuss the question whether her navigation was faulty.

As will be seen from the narrative of the transactions, the critical point in the courses of the respective boats was the buoy off Throggs Neck. That point was reached and passed by the Lackawanna while the Zouave was ’some distance to the eastward of it. The Lackawanna cleared it by 500 feet and could not have safety given a wider clearance because she had been overtaken and passed 100 feet to starboard by another tug, the Staples, with a long tow, which had not yet passed the Lackawanna. The two charges of negligence against the respondent were fully considered by Judge Hand, who held them both to be unproved.

That is the only navigation which need be considered, and since we concur in his reasoning and conclusions, the decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The district judge did not, as was suggested on the argument, hold that this was a case of inevitable accident; the Zouave was not brought into the case and it was not necessary to discuss the question whether her navigation was faulty.

As will be seen from the narrative of the transactions, the critical point in the courses of the respective boats was the buoy off Throggs Neck. That point was reached and passed by the Lackawanna while the Zouave was ’some distance to the eastward of it. The Lackawanna cleared it by 500 feet and could not have safety given a wider clearance because she had been overtaken and passed 100 feet to starboard by another tug, the Staples, with a long tow, which had not yet passed the Lackawanna. The two charges of negligence against the respondent were fully considered by Judge Hand, who held them both to be unproved.

That is the only navigation which need be considered, and since we concur in his reasoning and conclusions, the decree is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 F. 64, 124 C.C.A. 624, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcwilliams-v-delaware-l-w-r-ca2-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack