The William H. Trusedale

W.D. New York

The William H. Trusedale

26 F.2d 368, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1769

DecidedDecember 12, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 26 F.2d 368 (The William H. Trusedale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.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 William H. Trusedale, 26 F.2d 368, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1769 (W.D.N.Y. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

I have examined the decision in the Norman Bridge Case (D. C.) 21 F.(2d) 791, but think there are distinguishing features. There the repairs of necessity would have been made, at the expense of respondent which inflicted the collision damages, in the near future, it being a sea-going vessel. Here there was no immediate necessity for making the repairs, which consisted of dented plates above the water line, and, in all probability, the Viking being a lake steamer, they would not have been made until the close of navigation when she could not have sustained any loss of profit. The Thomas Kiley, 3 Ben. 228, Fed. Cas. No. 13,924. She could not have sustained actual loss (The Winfield S. Cahill [C. C. A.] 258 F. 318, 321), and the rule of demurrage for delay in making repairs is what she would have earned. The North Star (C. C. A.) 151 F. 168. The inference is fairly dedueible that the Viking would have continued sailing throughout the season of navigation without repairing the damage resulting from the Trusedale collision until the close of navigation; her immediate repairs being due to a cause not attributable to the Trusedale. Therefore I am of opinion that she should not be held liable for the 3% days’ delay. The Trusedale must, however, pay the cost of the repairs for the damages attributable to her, amounting to $2,248.97, together with the ship chandlery expenses, with interest.

Exceptions overruled.

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

HAZEL, District Judge.

I have examined the decision in the Norman Bridge Case (D. C.) 21 F.(2d) 791, but think there are distinguishing features. There the repairs of necessity would have been made, at the expense of respondent which inflicted the collision damages, in the near future, it being a sea-going vessel. Here there was no immediate necessity for making the repairs, which consisted of dented plates above the water line, and, in all probability, the Viking being a lake steamer, they would not have been made until the close of navigation when she could not have sustained any loss of profit. The Thomas Kiley, 3 Ben. 228, Fed. Cas. No. 13,924. She could not have sustained actual loss (The Winfield S. Cahill [C. C. A.] 258 F. 318, 321), and the rule of demurrage for delay in making repairs is what she would have earned. The North Star (C. C. A.) 151 F. 168. The inference is fairly dedueible that the Viking would have continued sailing throughout the season of navigation without repairing the damage resulting from the Trusedale collision until the close of navigation; her immediate repairs being due to a cause not attributable to the Trusedale. Therefore I am of opinion that she should not be held liable for the 3% days’ delay. The Trusedale must, however, pay the cost of the repairs for the damages attributable to her, amounting to $2,248.97, together with the ship chandlery expenses, with interest.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F.2d 368, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-william-h-trusedale-nywd-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack