The Stephen Bennett

42 F. 336, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMay 10, 1890
StatusPublished

This text of 42 F. 336 (The Stephen Bennett) 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 Stephen Bennett, 42 F. 336, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153 (E.D.N.Y. 1890).

Opinion

Benedict, J.

These are cross-libels filed to recover damages by reason of a collision which occurred about noon of December 6, 1888, off the New Jersey coast near to Barnegat, between the schooner Stephen Bennett and the schooner Elizabeth T. Cottingham. The weather was clear, wind blowing very hard from the N. N. W., and a heavy sea rolling in from the N. E. Both vessels, loaded with lumber, were beating up the coast. They had stood in from off shore towards the beach for • about an hour, the Cottingham being, ahead and a point on the lee bow of the Bennett. Whep the master of the Cottingham judged that he was near enough to the beach he tacked. At the same time, or perhaps a moment later, the Bennett also came up into the wind, intending to tack, but misstayed, and, gathering sternway, got under the bow of the Cot-tingham, and was struck by her. Upon the evidence, the Bennett alone is responsible for the collision. She was the overtaking vessel. She had misstayed before that morning, and knew that she was liable to mis-stay again. She had no right to tack so close to the Cottingham as to render collision inevitable in case she should misstay. The Cottingham was guilty of.-no fault. She was in the open sea, and, although she ,might perhaps1 have gone a little nearer to the shore than she did, it was no fault in her -to táck where she did, and it was the duty of the Bennett, following her so closely,—gaining on her, indeed, as the evidence shows, •—hot to tack so close to her as she did. The libel against the Cotting-.ham must be dismissed,1 with costs, and the libelants in the first action ;must have a decree, with an order of reference.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 F. 336, 1890 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-stephen-bennett-nyed-1890.