Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/733

THE KATB CANN. 7i9 �Bhe oould to have passed under the stem, instead of actoss the bows, of the ferry -boat, there would not have been any collision. �These views dispose of the action brought by the' Baxter against the Columbia, and compel a diamissal of the libel in.that case, They also compel a dismissal of the libel of the barki as against the Columbia, and entitle the libellant Baysen to a decree against the Baxter. The case of the lighter Watson is different, for she was lying at the end of pier 2. Still, I am inclined to the opinion that the ferry-boat must be absolved from any liability for the damage done to the lighter. I cannot say, upon the testimony, that the col- lision with the lighter was the resuit of negligence on the part of the ferry-boat. The ferry-boat was, by the fault of the tug and the tpw, driven into very dose quarters, and if, i;piscaJci;dating her niomen- tum by a few feet, when, in the endeavor to escape frotn the tug-and her tow, she brought up against the lighter, which had seen fit to put herself in an exposed position at the end, of the pier, any damage resulting therefrom, if not to be considered to be within tl^e risk assumed by the lighter when she placed herself ip such ,an eyposed position, must, in my opinion, be considered as , part of the xiatuff^l resuit of the negligence of the tug, for which the tug, and not the ferry-boat, would, in that case, be responsible. �The libel of the National Freight and Lighterage Ccttnpany inust, therefore, be dismissed. ui ■ ; i ■ ���The EL4.TB Cann. �{Circuit Cowrl, E. J}. New York. June 28, 1881.) �'jfj �1. Pbrsonai. Ihjtjkt— NEGiiiaBNCB in Stowino CaR(K>. , , . ... �The decision in this case, aa reported in 2 Fed. Rep. 241, afflnned. �In Admiralty. �J. J. Allen, for claimant. ; , i . . i; �mil, Wing d- Shoudy, for respondent. �Blatchfobd, C. j. I am entirely satisfied with the concliisiops arrived at by the district judge in this C8,9e,:. and with the reason assigned by him therefor in his decision. The case is one where the damage sued for was caused by the wrongful neglect, npon navigable water, of a maritime duty owing to the libellant by the owners of the vessel, and arising out of the employment of the vessel as a carrier of cargo, and for which the vessel herself is liable. The facts and the law are carefully exammed by the district judge, and the distinc- ��� �