North & East River Steamboat Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R.

Second Circuit

North & East River Steamboat Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R.

162 F. 682, 89 C.C.A. 474, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1908

DocketNo. 244

StatusPublished

This text of 162 F. 682 (North & East River Steamboat Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. 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

North & East River Steamboat Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R., 162 F. 682, 89 C.C.A. 474, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495 (2d Cir. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Practically the only question raised upon this appeal is whether there was a collision. The libelant’s vessel was evidently injured in some way, and its witnesses testify affirmatively that the collision occurred substantially as stated in the libel. On the other hand, the testimony of respondent’s witnesses, while mostly negative in character, tends to show that no such collision took place at all.

The burden of proof is upon the libelant. Still, considering all the testimony and all the circumstances, but without reviewing them here, we reach the conclusion that the libelant has sustained this burden, atid has shown that a collision took place on the east side of the channel. Inasmuch as the various tows qC the respondent, instead of following each other, were spread out into a flotilla which practically occupied three-quarters of the entire channel, we have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that such navigation was negligent, and was the cause of the collision.

Decree affirmed, with interest and costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Practically the only question raised upon this appeal is whether there was a collision. The libelant’s vessel was evidently injured in some way, and its witnesses testify affirmatively that the collision occurred substantially as stated in the libel. On the other hand, the testimony of respondent’s witnesses, while mostly negative in character, tends to show that no such collision took place at all.

The burden of proof is upon the libelant. Still, considering all the testimony and all the circumstances, but without reviewing them here, we reach the conclusion that the libelant has sustained this burden, atid has shown that a collision took place on the east side of the channel. Inasmuch as the various tows qC the respondent, instead of following each other, were spread out into a flotilla which practically occupied three-quarters of the entire channel, we have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that such navigation was negligent, and was the cause of the collision.

Decree affirmed, with interest and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F. 682, 89 C.C.A. 474, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-east-river-steamboat-co-v-new-york-n-h-h-r-ca2-1908.