The Pocomoke

173 F. 94, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 19, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 F. 94 (The Pocomoke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.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 Pocomoke, 173 F. 94, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1909).

Opinion

ADAMS, District Judge.

The first of the above entitled actions was brought by Leta D. Potter, the owner and master, and the other members of the crew of the tug boat Reliance to recover salvage for an alleged service in rescuing the barge Pocomoke from the dangers of the sea on the 23d day of December, 1908. The second action was brought by William B. McElwee, as owner and master, and members of the crew of the tug Hercules to recover for similar services.

The first libel alleges that the Reliance left Staten Island for Sandy Hook to cruise for business and on the way out discovered the tug Albatross in a disabled condition; that at the same time the crew discovered a barge laboring heavily at anchor and about 300 yards off False Hook Buoy on the Oil Spot with its flag flying union down; that the Reliance spoke the Albatross, asking' if she needed assistance and the reply was that she could get up the harbor without any; that the [95]*95Reliance then made for the barge which she found was laden with coal and in such a position that the seas were breaking heavily over her; that the Reliance went within hailing distance of the barge, which proved to be the Pocomoke, and after considerable difficulty got her hawser fastened to the port how of the barge; that the master of the barge requested the tug to push the barge head to the sea as much as possible as he was afraid the sea would wash off his hatch covers; that at this time the barge was in an exceedingly dangerous condition laboring heavily; that the sea was breaking heavily under the stern of the barge and she was lying on shoal ground; that had assistance not arrived promptly, in all probability the barge would have gone ashore and broken up before assistance could have reached her or would have bilged where she lay; that at the time the tug came up with the barge, she had her anchor out, which was dragging, and the captain of the Reliance was informed by the master of the barge that the barge had dragged her anchor for a considerable distance; that another tug, the Hercules, was there, and upon the tugs making fast the master of the barge slipped his anchor and both tugs commenced towing the barge into deep water and proceeded in the South Channel where the tugs hauled up on the course; that the tugs at first put out 7 inch hawsers of about 125 fathoms; that while hound in, owing to the fact that the barge’s rudder was broken, she took a long shear and parted the hawser of the Reliance and that tug put out a new hawser of 100 fathoms and the towing continued; that upon reaching smooth water, the Reliance let go her hawser and went back alongside of the barge and the Hercules continued the towing upon a hawser; that the tugs were engaged in the work from 8 a. m. to 2 p. m.; that the services rendered were salvage services of a high order of merit and had it not been for the timely assistance of the tugs, the barge and in its cargo in all probability would have been lost; that the Reliance is a large and powerful tug of the value of $15,000; that the value of the barge is $24,000 and its cargo of coal $3,500.

The libel of McElwee, owner of the Hercules, and of her crew, is practically the same. She alleges that she was also hound to Sandy Hook and discovered the Reliance engaged in making fast to the Pocomoke and went to her assistance and made fast to the barge’s starboard bow; that the value of the Hercules is about $15,000. In other respects there is no material difference in her libel.

The answer of the barge to the libel of Potter et al., after some admissions and denials, is as follows:

“Eighth: And for further answer to said libel and upon informal ion and belief claimant alleges, that said Barge Pocomoke being in tow of the Steaming Albatross, owing to thick weather anchored in the South Channel in a good and safe place oil the morning of December 23d, 3008, and said Steaming Albatross proceeded a short distance away, also anchoring, but while said steamtug was so moving to a place of anchorage her hawser got in her wheel, thus temporarily disabling her. That at about 8:30 o’clock on the morning of the day aforesaid, the weather clearing and growing better the said Steamtug Albatross started for Xew York in order to have the hawser or line in her wheel removed and then to return for the said barge or two other barges that had been left at anchor further away by the said Steamtug Albatross.
That while said Steamtug Albatross was so proceeding for Xew York, the Steamtug Reliance spoke the said Steamtug, and the Captain of the Steaming [96]*96Albatross asked as to what eomi>ensation the master of the said Steamtug Reliance desired for conveying a message to those on the said Barge Pocomoke, and the Master or pilot of the said Steamtug Reliance having asked an extraordinary price, the master of the said Steamtug Albatross informed him not to touch the said barge, nor to go near her, as she was all right and that he need not convey any message, and that said barge did not need any assistance from him or any other tug; but that instead of obeying the instructions from the said master of the said Steamtug Albatross, the said Steamtug Reliance proceeded to the said barge and informed those in charge, that he had been sent by the master of the said Steamtug Albatross to tow the said barge from her anchorage (she only having one anchor out at all the time while she was so at anchor, and two spare anchors that she did not need and did not use), but being informed that the said Steamtug Reliance was not capable of towing the said barge he stated that another tug was coming to his assistance, and the master of the said barge only permitted the said Steamtug Reliance and the Steamtug Hercules which subsequently showed up to take hold of the said barge, because of the representations made as aforesaid, that he was directed by the master of the Steamtug Albatross to tow the said barge into New York, and that said Steamtug towed the said barge Pocomoke to Clifton, Staten Island, without any difficulty or trouble, excepting that a small and worn out hawser attached to the Reliance parted.
Claimant also avers that the anchor which was used by the barge was slipped and buoyed, but that the buoy for some cause, disappeared.
Claimant also alleges that the barge’s rudder was broken, which had occurred before the barge anchored as aforesaid and that the said Steamtug Reliance on the way in with the said barge when alongside of her made fast .on her starboard side.
Claimant also alleges that said barge was anchored where there was plenty of water and that she was not dragging or moving in any way and that she was in a place of perfect safety, and did not need the assistance of either of said Steamtugs.”

The answer to the McElwee libel is practically the same as that just mentioned.

The testimony shows that the Albatross started from Norfolk, Virginia, on the 20th of December with 3 barges in tow, the Pocomoke, the Annie Embrey and the Dendron. The Albatross was a large sea-going tug, 139 feet long and of about 800 horse power. The Pocomoke was the leading barge, the others following. The hawser between the Pocomoke and the tug was 10 inches in circumference and 225 fathoms in length, that between the Pocomoke and the second barge was a 7 inch hawser about 200 fathoms in length and that between the second and third barges was another 7 inch hawser and of about 225 fathoms in length.

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

Related

Orinoco Iron Co. v. Metzel
230 F. 40 (Sixth Circuit, 1916)
The D. L. Co. No. XX
205 F. 188 (W.D. Washington, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 F. 94, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-pocomoke-nysd-1909.