Sweeney v. Leonard

Second Circuit

Sweeney v. Leonard

80 F. 414, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1826

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 80 F. 414 (Sweeney v. Leonard) 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

Sweeney v. Leonard, 80 F. 414, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1826 (2d Cir. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not find in the record sufficient reason to reverse the decision of the district judge, who heard and saw the witnesses. The testimony indicates quite clearly that they differed greatly in intelligence. While we do not in all respects agree with the theory of the movements of the vessels as set forth in his opinion, we concur in the conclusion of the district judge that the proximate cause of the collision was the navigation of the Carroll Boys, which was evidently making for the left-hand side of the East river, and “miscalculated or neglected to consider the space necessary for the turn of the barge in going through the slack water” of the Battery. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with interest, and costs to the Leonard against the appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

We do not find in the record sufficient reason to reverse the decision of the district judge, who heard and saw the witnesses. The testimony indicates quite clearly that they differed greatly in intelligence. While we do not in all respects agree with the theory of the movements of the vessels as set forth in his opinion, we concur in the conclusion of the district judge that the proximate cause of the collision was the navigation of the Carroll Boys, which was evidently making for the left-hand side of the East river, and “miscalculated or neglected to consider the space necessary for the turn of the barge in going through the slack water” of the Battery. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with interest, and costs to the Leonard against the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. 414, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweeney-v-leonard-ca2-1897.