United States v. Winneconne S. S. Co.

59 F.2d 660, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3437, 1933 A.M.C. 170
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 1932
DocketNo. 6266
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 59 F.2d 660 (United States v. Winneconne S. S. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Winneconne S. S. Co., 59 F.2d 660, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3437, 1933 A.M.C. 170 (5th Cir. 1932).

Opinion

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

During a sudden squall on the Mississippi river in the harbor of New Orleans on March 31,1921, the steamship Cecil C'ounty, belonging to the United States, came into collision with the steamship Winneeonne, belonging to Winneeonne Steamship Company and broke her loose from her anchorage, the Win-neeonne afterwards striking four other ships belonging to the United States and the Cecil County striking one or two more. Several libels and cross-libels in rem and in personam followed which were consolidated and tried in 1928 along with interventions of insurers who claimed subrogation; the Cecil County being held alone at fault and decree for damages done the Winneeonne going in favor of her owners and insurers against the United States, the latter appealing.

The squall occurred in early morning while all the ships concerned were at anchor and few persons were astir on them. It last-, ed only about ten minutes, and was accompanied at its height by rain so heavy as to prevent sight of the shore and to render visibility poor for nearer objects. In addition to these difficulties of observation, many years elapsed before some of the important witnesses were examined, so that it is more than usually necessary to depend on the probabilities arising from the general circumstances in reconciling the testimony. The river at the point in question runs approximately southeast with a current of about four miles per hour. Its width is a half mile. The depth is sixty feet, and the bottom is mud, [661]*661•affording a good anchorage. The vessels involved, together with many others, were anchored on the southwest side o £ the center of the river, each with one anchor out and about 45 fathoms of chain in the water, a usual and sufficient amount in good weather, but too short to stand much wind. All the vessels hung straight down stream from their anchors in the absence of wind sufficient to counteract the current. The Cecil County anchored March 5,1921, with no other vessel off her starboard. The Winneconne anchored March 23d somewhat to starboard of the Cecil County and to her rear; the exact distance being disputed. The other vessels injured were to the rear and to port of the Winneconne. Just before 6 a. m., on March 31st a, violent squall came from the north and northwest, preceded, as some testify, by a strong wind from the south and accompanied by blinding rain. Weather Bureau reports, which being required by official duty to be kept were properly admitted in evidence over objection (Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660, 25 L. Ed. 306), show that in New Orleans, three or four miles to the northwest o£ the ships, there was a south breeze of as much as 10 miles per hour from 5 to 5:48 a. ml; that at 5:48 a wind came suddenly from the northwest at 30 miles per hour, rising to 43 miles by 5:51. It dropped to an average of 24 miles from 6:01 to 7, and heavy rain fell from 5:47 to 5 :57. The Cecil County was a tanker of 10,250 tons dead weight, and measuring 450 feet over all, and was riding light, with bow 30 feel out and only 4 feet under water, but with stern which contained her machinery drawing 17 feet. The Winneconne was of 5,100 tons dead weight and 315 feet Jong, also light, and drawing 6 feet forward and 12 feet aft; her how being 20 to 24 feet above water. All witnesses agree that a south wind coming on the port quarter would at first veer the light high hows to starboard, the ships pivoting on their deeper stems; the wind affecting most the bow and the current the stern. The wind continuing steady would next press the whole ship to starboard; the anchor tending to hold the hows back to port until an equilibrium should be established with the ship swinging to leeward of her anchor athwart the current to an extent determined by the relative strength of the wind and current, and heading somewhere between the two. We think this happened to the Ceeil County and to the Winneconne, resulting* in the stem of the Ceeil County passing out into the river and beyond the bow and anchor chain of the Winneconne, and the swing of the Winneconne being also such as to cause the whole of the Cecil County to appear off her starboard how to those on board the Win-neconne. The south wind was probably not so strong as testified by some, but must have been sufficient to thus place the ships in order to explain the subsequent occurrences. When the sudden and violent wind came from the northwest, it struck both ships on the starboard bow, vesting the bows suddenly to port so as to point to the port rather than the starboard of their respective anchors; the slack in cable produced by the south wind making* a considerable veer across the current possible before the hows were again brought up by their anchors. When so brought up by the anchors, the combined force of wind and current should next have swung the stems to shoreward, with a final result that each vessel would again hang to leeward of her anchor and would head between wind and current, but with so strong a wind almost into the wind. We believe, however, that while the Winneconne, whose anchor held, behaved thus, the Cecil County whose bow offered so much more surface to the wind and was less in the water swung more violently, and in bringing up on her anchor dragged it, and then with wind and current nearly abeam continued to drag it down the river and slightly shoreward till the keel near the stern struck Jio anchor chain of the Winneconne, rode np it till it broke, and the vessels collided, the port quarter of the Cecil County striking upon the stem of the Winneconne. The Winneconne thus set adrift started down the river and shoreward in contact with the Cecil County, but the latter’s bow being retarded by the dragging anchor its stern continued to hug the starboard how of the Winneconne, preventing the latter from dropping her starboard anchor at once until the Winneconne gained speed enough to drift clear. The Ceeil County then passed further shoreward to strike the Belle Bine and perhaps the Seneca, when having paid out more cable her dragging anchor began to hold and she brought up on it. The Winneconne dropped her starboard anchor when clear and paying out 60 fathoms of chain sought to check up on it but could not, and the chain parted at 90 fathoms, leaving her helpless to strike other ships below. This, wo think, is what occurred.

We absolve the Winneconne from blame for her collisions when adrift, because we find that she was well anchored until struck by the Cecil County, that she dropped her second anchor as promptly afterwards as possible, and was not at fault in that her mo[662]*662mentum and the wind and current were such that she could not then be held by her chain, which is testified to have been duly inspected and in good condition. The testimony that with the depth and bottom there present it was bad seamanship to pay out 90 fathoms of chain before beginning to cheek the ship does not cover the situation, because the cheeking began at 60 fathoms and continued until the chain parted at 90 fathoms. The Cecil County was dragging with 45 fathoms out, and had to pay out more than 60 for her anchor to hold even after her momentum ■was checked by collisions with other ships. We also reject the contention that the original fault was with the Winneeonne in giving the Cecil County a foul berth by anchoring too close, so that the Cecil County in swinging normally caught the Winneeonne’s chain and was thus caused to drag anchor. When the Winneeonne in charge of a licensed river pilot came to anchor on March 23d there was no vessel to starboard and none aft of her. She had any desired space in either direction.

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

Related

Micmar Motorship Corp. v. Cabaneli Naviera S.A.
477 F. Supp. 45 (E.D. Louisiana, 1979)
Riddle v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
73 S.E.2d 793 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1953)
Minnehaha County, SD v. Kelley
150 F.2d 356 (Eighth Circuit, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 F.2d 660, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3437, 1933 A.M.C. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-winneconne-s-s-co-ca5-1932.