Nelson v. Leland

63 U.S. 48, 16 L. Ed. 269, 22 How. 48, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 696
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 16, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 63 U.S. 48 (Nelson v. Leland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nelson v. Leland, 63 U.S. 48, 16 L. Ed. 269, 22 How. 48, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 696 (1860).

Opinions

[50]*50Mr. Justice McLEAN

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal in admiralty from the Circuit Court of the United States of the eastern district of Louisiana.

The libellants allege that they were the consignees of a certain flat-boat called “ Clear the Track,” and of three hundred and sixty-six bales of cotton, which were shipped to them by various persons by said flat-boat; that said boat left Sardinia. on Yakana river, in the State of Mississippi, on the 19th February, 1858, bound for Rbw Orleans; that on the 2d March ensuing, on said voyage, descending the Yazoo river, about eight miles below the head of .Honey Island, and within the admiralty jurisdiction, about four o’clock on the morning of said day, the flat-boat, being a stanch, tight, and well-built vessel, completely rigged and well provided with tackle, apparel, and furniture, and having on board a full complement of men to navigate the boat, being about the middle of the said Yazoo river, leaving sufficient space on either side for a steamboat or other large vessel to pass, and having a light upon the flat-boat, the captain and crew of the boat being up, the steamboat Brigadier General R. II. Stokes, ascending the said river, struck the flat-boat “ Clear the Track ” in the bows, which caused her to fill with water, and become a complete wreck; that the steamboat rung her bell, recognising the light of the flat-boat, but continuing to run up the middle of the river.

In their answers, the respondents say that the collision set forth in the libel occurred on the Yazoo river, about fifty miles above the foot of said island, and more than two hundred miles above the mouth of the Yazoo, where it falls into the Mississippi river; and that the entire length of the Yazoo river is within the State of Mississippi; and they allege that the District Court has not jurisdiction of the matters and things, or the claim alleged in the libel' against the respondent. And the respondent denies that the collision was caused or did happen by any fault, negligence, or want of skill, in the officers or crew of the steamboat; and they say it was caused by the unskilful management of1 the flat-boat; and the proper place for the flat-boat, it is said, was at the shore at night; and that [51]*51there was not sufficient space for the steamboat to pass between the flat-boat and the shore.

D. B. Miller says : I have seen the flat-boat; she seemed to have a sufficient number of hands-on board, and to be well managed. From the size of the boat, witness thinks she was suitable for the navigation of the Yazoo and Mississippi rivers, and from her size she would carry three, hundred and fifty bales of cotton and more.

Jackson Harris is of the same opinion. James D. Bell examined the boat well, and considered her strong and well built. Saw her loaded with three hundred and forty bales of cotton, and says she would have carried fifty more bales safely. Capt. Williams was captain of the flat-boat “ Clear the-Track ” when the collision occurred. Besides himself, he had five hands and one passenger, who also worked. Witness began his trip at Sardinia, on the Yakana river. The flat-boat had three hundred and seventy-one bales of cotton on board. Nothing of importance occurred until the morning of the second of March, 1853, when a steamer was heard coming up the river, which afterwards proved to be the Brigadier General R. H. Stokes. Witness had laid down about twelve o’clock that night, but was shortly afterwards awaked by Johnson, one,of his hands,, who informed him a steamboat was approaching, and he desired witness to be on deck. Witness saw the steamer approaching, at a distance of about half a mile. A light on deck was immediately prepared. At this time, the steamboat was about four or five hundred yai’ds out of sight round the -point. The witness ordered his men, four of whom were on deck at the time, to throw the boat out from the point, so as to give the steamer room to pass. Continued efforts were made for this purpose, until the collision occurred.

When the boats carne together,- all hands were at the oars, except Mr. Johnson, who held the light. The steamboat could be seen across the point. It was some fifteen minutes, the steamboat being in full view, before the boats came into collision. The flat-boat was struck on the first stanchion from the corner of the bow nearest the point of the nosing, about three feet from the jackstaff of the steamer. The collision was [52]*52very severe — so great as to knock every one down on the flatboat. Witness was knocked down senseless by the crane-neck of the oar, but he saw all the others fall beforé he fell. When witness recovered from the effect of the blow, he perceived the steamer had passed out of his view. Every effort was made to stop the hole made in the flat-boat by the steamer, and, by working the pump, to keep the boat from sinking. The boat floated down some twenty-five miles before they could land her. In less than an hour after the collision, the boat sank six feet deeper in the water, and became unmanageable; and a landing' was made, with great difficulty, at some three or four o’clock iu the afternoon.

The steamer Stacey came down the river the next day, and she took on two hundred bales of the cotton, including the thirty-five on shore. Before the arrival of the Stacey, witness had engaged the steamboat McLean to go up and take up the cotton that could be saved.

Witness has been engaged in flat-bpating on the Yazoo' river for the last eighteen years. He does not consider the place where the collision happened as unsafe to run a flat-boat at night, and that it is not usual to tie up flat-boats' in that part of the river.

The witness says the flat-boat had a torch made of split pine boards, as usual on - such occasions. The Stacey met the flatboat in a very narrow part of the river, much narrower than where the.flat-boat met the Stokes. The Stacey was much nearer the flat-boat when she rang her bell than the Stokes, but she backed out of. the way. The Stacey is double the size of the Stokes, it being the largest boat that runs up the Yazoo.

Mr. Johnson is corroborated by others in his statement. Thomas Barnes says the steamer did not change her course after seeing the flat-boat. The steamer was not- hurt. Her jackstaft* was knocked off, which ivas replaced. Did not hear Captain Williams offer'any assistance to the flat-boat. At the time the steamer struck the flat-boat, she was nearly in full headway.

Witness thinks there was time enough for the steamer to [53]*53•get out of the way of the flat-boat. The master of the boat entered a regular protest against the steamer. A. number of witnesses referred to facts which have no material bearing in the case.

On the part of the respondent, it was proved by William F. Mouldin, the pilot on the Yazoo since 1845, and was so acting on the Stokes when the collision occurred, eight miles from the head'of Honey Island: The bell was rung to stop at Hall’s Landing. Directly after ringing the large bell to land, saw a light, as he supposed, at the landing. The river was narrow and the current swift. After running a short distance, and rounding the point, saw the flat-boat about three hundred yards above the steamer. He immediately rang the bell to stop' the engines, and then to back her, which was done. When she had made about six revolutions, the collision took place. The steamboat was nearly at á stand. The flat-boat was floating nearly broadside down the river.

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

Related

Moran Scow Corporation v. SS BOSTON
342 F. Supp. 216 (S.D. New York, 1972)
Donnelly v. Montague
24 N.E.2d 864 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Polluck v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
180 N.W. 61 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1920)
The Manaway
257 F. 476 (E.D. Virginia, 1919)
Miltimore v. Hoffman
104 N.W. 841 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
The New York
175 U.S. 187 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Chisolm v. Caines
67 F. 285 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1894)
In Re Garnett
141 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Alabama
17 F. 847 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1883)
The Golden Grove
13 F. 674 (D. Delaware, 1882)
State ex rel. Williamson v. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas
42 N.J.L. 386 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1880)
Smith v. Ryan
7 Jones & S. 489 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1875)
Stevens v. Corn Exchange Bank
5 Thomp. & Cook 283 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
The Propeller Commerce
66 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1862)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 U.S. 48, 16 L. Ed. 269, 22 How. 48, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-leland-scotus-1860.