Snow v. Hill

61 U.S. 543, 15 L. Ed. 1017, 20 How. 543, 1857 U.S. LEXIS 484
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 18, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 U.S. 543 (Snow v. Hill) 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
Snow v. Hill, 61 U.S. 543, 15 L. Ed. 1017, 20 How. 543, 1857 U.S. LEXIS 484 (1858).

Opinion

Mr. Justice McLEAN

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal in admiralty from the Circuit Court-fpr the eastern district of Louisiana.

Hill and others, as claimants, in their libel, state that the Ocean Queen, being duly enrolled, registered, and equipped, left the port of New Orleans on a voyage to Liverpool, England, having a cargo of about 2,780 bales of cotton; that on the 5th of November, 1852, about half past nine o’clock, P. M., under the tow of the tow-boat Star on the larboard side, the ship Charles and Jane on the starboard, and a brig in tow astern, were proceeding down the river Mississippi for the Balize; that at about’midnight on the same evening, twenty miles below'New Orleans, the steamship Crescent City, then ascending the river, came in collision with the Ocean Queen on her larboard bow, cutting her to the bends, breaking her planking, timbers, and knées, and so injured the ship as to *546 disable her frcpn the prosecution of her voyage, and compelled her to return to New Orleans to l’efit; and that the costs of repairs and expenses amounted to the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars; and a lien on the Crescent City and the Star, for the above sum, is jointly and severally claimed.

The answer of the United States Mail Steamship Company, a body corporate, owner, says, the Crescent City was ascending the Mississippi river to the port of New Orleans, and was at a point in the river just below the English Turn, when, at about midnight, the pilot and crew discovered a tow-boat, which proved to be the Star, with the Ocean Queen and two other vessels, a short distance in front, and close to the eastern bank of the river; that there was not sufficient room to pass between the tow and the bank; that the tow-boat and her tow were out of the usual course of vessels descending the river, and that the Crescent City was in her proper position; that the Ocean Queen had not a light set in her rigging or elsewhere, visible to those on board the Crescent City; that the tow-boat failed to ring her bell or stop her engines and float, in the manner pointed out by law; that the Crescent City had slowed her engines on approaching the tow-boat, and receiving no signal that she was descending the river, put the helm of the Crescent City to the starboard, so as to pass outside of and clear of the Star and her tow; that she was heading to the western bank of the river, and as they approached her the Crescent City stopped her engines, and then backed, and was backing when the Ocean Queen and the tow-boat Star ran into the starboard bow of the Crescent City, striking her about twelve feet from her stern, and causing great damage.

That the pilot, officers, and crew, of the Crescent City, managed their boat with great care and skill; that the collision was caused by negligence and want of care of the tow-boat Star and the Ocean Queen, in not keeping their proper position on the river, in not ringing their bell, &c.

The answer of the Tow-boat Company to the libel was filed, denying the allegation's it contained, and charging the fault on the Crescent City.

As the decision of the court must be governed by the evidence, it is not important to refer to the other pleadings in the case.

David Kelly, a witness, after describing the tow-boat and the other vessels fastened to her, as stated in the libel, said,when they started from New Orleans the Ocean Queen had one of her own men at the helm; afterwards- the Star sent a man who took charge of it. They proceeded down the river, as near the middle as possible. . In about an hour, one of the *547 men from the tow-boat Star came on board and set the wheel again. They continued about the middle of the river until twelve o’clock at night. At this time the witness was on the lookout, when he saw the Crescent City ascending the river at a great distance. The tow was about the middle of the river, a little nearer the western than the eastern shore.' The night was clear, so that one could see all over the river. Witness stood on the forecastle, forward, waiting for the Crescent City, supposing that she would keep clear of them, as there was plenty of room on the larboard side; but she approached so near that witness hailed heij, and the tow-boat stopped her engines and rang her bell, but to no purpose; the Crescent City did not alter her course; she came so close that witness could see all over her forecastle forward, where her lookout should have been, but he saw no one on the lookout. He staid in his position until the Crescent City struck the ship Ocean Queen on her larboard bow. Witness then jumped off the forecastle and ran aft, but returned in a few minutes, and saw, for the first time, one or two men on the forecastle of the Crescent City. She struck the Ocean Queen on her larboard bow, and stove everything in forward; carried away the larboard cathead entirely, so that the anchor went down the full length of the chain, and parted all the fastenings of the Ocean Queen to the tow-boat, carried away the guards of the Star, and bent her smoke-pipe. The tow-boat brought the Ocean Queen back to the city. The witness was the only person on watch on the Ocean Queen. There were no lights hung out on the vessel, but he supposes her lights in the cabin must have been visible through the windows. Witness knew the river well; took particular notice, and is confident, when the Crescent City approached the tow, it was. about the middle -of the river. The Star did not alter her course. When he first saw the Crescent City, she was about half a mile distant; when he first hailed her, she was about four or five times her length from the tow. Witness thinks, when the Crescent City struck, she was going ahead fast. The tow-boat Star stopped her engine, and rang her bell; her light hung between the smoke-pipe and her forward fires.

John Marston was standing on the deck of the Ocean Queen when he first saw the Crescent City; she was about five times her length off. The night was clear, and he could distinctly see both shores. ' The tow-boat was heading down the river, as near the middle of it as possible. She was running about seven knots an hour; he thinks the Crescent City was running some eight or ten. knots an hour when she struck the Ocean Queen. There were two signal-lights on the Star.

*548 Henry Crowell, a witness, was on the deck of the Ocean Queen; saw the Crescent City half a mile off; as she approached, he hailed her. The tow was in the middle of the river, rather nearer to the western than the eastern shore; of this he is confident. Richard Matthews was master of the Ocean Queen. The night was clear and starlight; could see both shores. The Ocean Queen was nearer the western than the eastern shore. Soon after the collision, she drifted to the western shore.

Henry J. Whitney was master of the tow-boat; he has been engaged in that business eight or ten years ; heard the bell ring; came immediately on deck; ran aft, and directed the hawser of the brig to be let go, in order that he might back. The tug was near the middle of the river, nearest to the western shore. He is positive as to this fact.

Witness has heard Captains Disney, Chapman, Brown, Laplace, Phillips, and others, say that Captain Foote, the pilot of the Crescent City, is not considered as a pilot, and especially among masters of tow-boats.

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

Related

Standard Oil Co. v. Davies
272 F. 67 (Fourth Circuit, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 U.S. 543, 15 L. Ed. 1017, 20 How. 543, 1857 U.S. LEXIS 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snow-v-hill-scotus-1858.