United States v. The Annie S. Cooper

E.D. Louisiana

United States v. The Annie S. Cooper

48 F. 703, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana

DecidedDecember 15, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 48 F. 703 (United States v. The Annie S. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. The Annie S. Cooper, 48 F. 703, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189 (E.D. La. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

BiluNgs, J.

A libel of information has been filed against this steam-tug for not carrying the lights required by law, viz., rule 7. It is not charged that she had not the lights required by the statute for a, steam-tug which had in tow a vessel, viz., rule 4, hereinafter set forth. It is charged that she had in tow a raft of logs, and not a vessel. The question, therefore, is narrowed down to this: Under section 4233 of the Revised Statutes, does rule 4 of that section include a steam-tug towing a raft of logs? That rule is as follows: “Rule 4. Steam-vessels, when towing other vessels, shall carry two bright white mast-head lights vertically, in addition to their side-lights, so as to distinguish them from other steam-vessels.” The first question presented is whether, under rule 4, a raft of logs is a vessel. Section 3 of the Revised Statutes (1873) thus describes vessels: “The word ‘vessel ’ includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. ” A raft of logs is a contrivance whereby the logs themselves are kept together, and thus made capable of being transported. They are not the means, and the whole structure is not a means of transporting anything but the things which make up the structure. Therefore a raft of logs might not be strictly a vessel. But, in interpreting a rule, wre must look at the reason of the rule. The object of the rule was to require steam-tugs having things in tow to carry certain lights to enable all other vessels to know that they were not steam-vessels without tows. The different light is required of the steam-tug having something in tow to enable all vessels to keep out of the way of the tows. Steam-tugs having rafts in tow are not, by the statute and rules, distinguished from other steam-vessels, unless they are meant to be included within the scope of this rule. Can it make any difference with the danger to other vessels whether the tow is technically a vessel or a raft of logs? Clearly, not. The reason of the rule makes it include vessels and rafts of logs, or anything else which steam-tugs are wont to tow. In my opinion, a steam-tug, while towing a raft of logs, as to lights, is governed by rule 4, and not by rule 7. I think, therefore, the exception to the libel is well founded, and should be maintained. Let the libel be dismissed.

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

BiluNgs, J.

A libel of information has been filed against this steam-tug for not carrying the lights required by law, viz., rule 7. It is not charged that she had not the lights required by the statute for a, steam-tug which had in tow a vessel, viz., rule 4, hereinafter set forth. It is charged that she had in tow a raft of logs, and not a vessel. The question, therefore, is narrowed down to this: Under section 4233 of the Revised Statutes, does rule 4 of that section include a steam-tug towing a raft of logs? That rule is as follows: “Rule 4. Steam-vessels, when towing other vessels, shall carry two bright white mast-head lights vertically, in addition to their side-lights, so as to distinguish them from other steam-vessels.” The first question presented is whether, under rule 4, a raft of logs is a vessel. Section 3 of the Revised Statutes (1873) thus describes vessels: “The word ‘vessel ’ includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water. ” A raft of logs is a contrivance whereby the logs themselves are kept together, and thus made capable of being transported. They are not the means, and the whole structure is not a means of transporting anything but the things which make up the structure. Therefore a raft of logs might not be strictly a vessel. But, in interpreting a rule, wre must look at the reason of the rule. The object of the rule was to require steam-tugs having things in tow to carry certain lights to enable all other vessels to know that they were not steam-vessels without tows. The different light is required of the steam-tug having something in tow to enable all vessels to keep out of the way of the tows. Steam-tugs having rafts in tow are not, by the statute and rules, distinguished from other steam-vessels, unless they are meant to be included within the scope of this rule. Can it make any difference with the danger to other vessels whether the tow is technically a vessel or a raft of logs? Clearly, not. The reason of the rule makes it include vessels and rafts of logs, or anything else which steam-tugs are wont to tow. In my opinion, a steam-tug, while towing a raft of logs, as to lights, is governed by rule 4, and not by rule 7. I think, therefore, the exception to the libel is well founded, and should be maintained. Let the libel be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 F. 703, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-the-annie-s-cooper-laed-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack