The Co. F. Young

E.D. New York

The Co. F. Young

24 F. 511, 1885 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105

DecidedFebruary 25, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. 511 (The Co. F. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Co. F. Young, 24 F. 511, 1885 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105 (E.D.N.Y. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

Upon the evidence in this case the libelant can recover against one of the tugs proceeded against, but not against the other. He can recover against the Co. F. Young if he and the witnesses produced by the Sarah C. Hagar tell the truth. He can recover against the Sarah C. Hagar if the witnesses produced by the Co. F. Young tell the truth. I incline to believe the account given by those in charge of the Co. F. Young, for the following reasons: This account is not improbable, while it is highly improbable that the Co. F. Young, with the Sarah G. Hagar and her tow in plain sight, would start uy and run into the canal-boat, as the witnesses from the Hagar say she did. Such an act was so uncalled for that the witnesses for the other side say that the collision must have been intentional on the part of the Co. F. Young. Moreover, the testimony given by the libel-ant and the witnesses for the Hagar is far from harmonious, whereas the testimony given by those from the Co. F. Young is not open to such a criticism. In addition to this, the witnesses who testify to the account contended for by the Sarah C. Hagar are outnumbered by the witnesses for the Go. F. Young. In such a state of the evidence, the libel, as against the Go. F. Young, must be dismissed, and the libel-ant may have a decree against the Sarah C. Hagar, with a reference to ascertain his damages.

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

Benedict, J.

Upon the evidence in this case the libelant can recover against one of the tugs proceeded against, but not against the other. He can recover against the Co. F. Young if he and the witnesses produced by the Sarah C. Hagar tell the truth. He can recover against the Sarah C. Hagar if the witnesses produced by the Co. F. Young tell the truth. I incline to believe the account given by those in charge of the Co. F. Young, for the following reasons: This account is not improbable, while it is highly improbable that the Co. F. Young, with the Sarah G. Hagar and her tow in plain sight, would start uy and run into the canal-boat, as the witnesses from the Hagar say she did. Such an act was so uncalled for that the witnesses for the other side say that the collision must have been intentional on the part of the Co. F. Young. Moreover, the testimony given by the libel-ant and the witnesses for the Hagar is far from harmonious, whereas the testimony given by those from the Co. F. Young is not open to such a criticism. In addition to this, the witnesses who testify to the account contended for by the Sarah C. Hagar are outnumbered by the witnesses for the Go. F. Young. In such a state of the evidence, the libel, as against the Go. F. Young, must be dismissed, and the libel-ant may have a decree against the Sarah C. Hagar, with a reference to ascertain his damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. 511, 1885 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-co-f-young-nyed-1885.