Page images
PDF
EPUB

barge of the libellant was staved in by her propeller, as is supposed, and sank. It is agreed that it was quite dark at the time, and the captain of the tug says that half a gale was blowing from N.N.W. There is conflicting evidence as to the width of the channel at that place, but the weight of it is, and the assessors found, that it is six hundred feet. The tide was at ebb, and the progress of the tug and tows was about three miles an hour, which is nearly three hundred feet per minute. Of course, if the tug stopped, the tow-boats would be upon her in a little over a minute of time. The pilot of the tug says that, "there are flats on both sides of the river; that they were steering by marks on the land when they could see them, and when they could not see them they steered by guess work; that they could not see the shore or any mark on it when they grounded, and had not been able to get regular mark for half an hour before they grounded." It seems so very manifest that this was hazardous sailing, that the claimants feel the necessity of relying more on the alleged negligence of the owner of the barge in contributing to the accident, than on any justification of their own conduct. The assessors to whom the questions of fact were referred below, reported as follows: "The assessors have no hesitation in saying that the tug was in fault in not using the proper skill and judgment (caution) in navigation of the said tug. To exemplify: it appears that the navigator of the tug elected to proceed with his tow under what the assessors think were very hazardous circumstances. It is shown by the testimony that the wind was blowing strong, if not nearly a gale; the night was dark, spitting snow occasionally; no landmarks were discernible, or any visible thing to guide the navigator in this blind' part of the channel; yet, notwithstanding this, there was no lead, no sounding pole, or any means whatever used to ascertain the depth of the water, or to warn the navigator of his approach on to the flats which lined that portion of the river. This neglect seems the more reprehensible as the channel is deep, (reference to the chart presented shows that the channel is about six hundred feet wide where the collision occurred,) and the approach to the flats steep, and consequently more readily indicated."

In this verdict of the assessors we concur.

The question then arises whether the libellant, by his own negligence, contributed to the accident. It appears that there was no one on the deck of the barge when the collision happened. On one or two of the barges in the forward tier there were persons on deck at the time. But they all agree in saying that nothing could

have been done to prevent the collision. Their rudders, if they could have been unlashed, were at once disabled by the approach of the barges behind, and they could hardly be apprised of the stopping of the tug before they were down upon her. Besides, the whole tow as well as the tug was under the direction of the master of the latter, and it does not appear that he required the people in the barges to be on the lookout. An experienced tug captain testified that they don't expect to have any one on the deck of the tows; that it is not customary, and is not required. On this point the assessors say: "The assessors are of the opinion that there could not have been anything done to prevent the collision, because, 1st, the distance was too short, say three hundred feet at three knots, would be overcome in one minute of time; 2d, because those on board of the tow had no intimation that the tug was ashore, or even in danger, as the hail to 'keep off' or 'keep clear' certainly conveyed no warning that such a state of things existed, but would clearly be taken for an order to 'keep off' from the 'flats.'"

The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs. Mr. Edward D. McCarthy and Mr. J. Hubley Ashton for appellant. Mr. Morton P. Henry, Mr. T. C. T. Buckley and Mr. James W. Paul for appellee.

CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. v.

FULLER.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.
No. 89. Submitted November 6, 1873. - Decided December 23, 1873.

Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 561, followed.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

The record in this case presents the same question as the record in No. 88, between the same parties, heretofore decided at the present term, Railroad Company v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 561. The opinion in No. 88 decides that question.

The judgment in this case is, therefore, affirmed.

Mr. B. C. Cook for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. Hubley Ashton and Mr. Nuthaniel Wilson for defendant in

error.

KENNER v. UNITED STATES.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

No. 202. Argued April 8 and 9, 1874. - Decided May 4, 1874.

The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, followed.

MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

There is nothing in this case which we have not considered in our review of The United States v. Eight Hundred and Forty-four Lots and Ten Squares of Ground, the property of John Slidell, just decided. The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. C. Cushing, Mr. W. W. Boyce, Mr. C. M. Conrad, Mr. L. L. Conrad, Mr. W. D. Davidge and Mr. R. Fendall for plaintiff in

error.

Mr. Attorney General for defendant in error.

ALLEN v. TARLTON.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OR LOUISIANA. No. 251. Submitted March 16, 1874. - Decided March 23, 1874.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

MOTION TO DISMISS.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. The writ of error taken in this cause is dismissed, because it does not appear that judgment of the state court necessarily involved the decision of any question which could give this court jurisdiction. Dismissed.

Mr. Miles Taylor and Mr. P. Phillips for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. Charles W. Hornor for defendants in error.

UNITED STATES v. SIX LOTS, HATCH, Claimant. UNITED STATES v. TEN LOTS, CONRAD, Claimant.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

[blocks in formation]

No. 283. Argued April 8 and 9, 1874. May 4, 1874.

The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, followed.

MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court. These cases are in all essential particulars like the case of The United States v. Eight Hundred and Forty-four Lots and Ten Squares of Ground, the property of John Slidell; The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92. What we have said in reference to that case is equally applicable to these,

In each case the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to affirm the judgment or decree of the District Court.

CLIFFORD, DAVIS and FIELD, JJ., dissented.

Reversed.

Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Thomas J. Durant for plaintiff in

error.

Mr. C. M. Conrad and Mr. C. Cushing for defendants in error.

PRIEST v. FOLGER.

THWING v. FOLGER.

ERROR TO THE

SUPREME

JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Nos. 298 and 299. Argued April 21, 1874. - Decided May 4, 1874.

Habich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 1, followed.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases involve the same questions as the case above decided, Habich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 1; and, in accordance with that decision, are affirmed.

Mr. Dudley Field for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. John C. Dodge for defendant in error.

WOODMAN PEBBLING MACHINE CO. v. GUILD. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 311. Submitted January 16, 1874. - Decided January 19, 1874.

A judgment is entered according to the stipulation of the parties.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.
Since the appeal the parties have come to an adjustment of the
controversy, as appears by the stipulation on file.

Pursuant to that stipulation I am instructed to direct that the decree of the Circuit Court be reversed; the entry to be, that it is reversed by consent and that the cause be remanded with directions that a decree be entered in the Circuit Court for the complainant as prayed in the bill of complaint, it being stated in the mandate that the decree here is entered by consent of parties as appears by the stipulation which should be recorded in the case.

Mr. T. L. Wakefield for appellant.
Mr. George L. Roberts for appellees.

Reversed.

BRUGERE v. SLIDELL.

HEATH v. SLIDELL.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

Nos. 479, 532. Submitted January 8, 1874.- Decided January 19, 1874.

Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339, and Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156, followed.

MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.

Both these cases are controlled by the decisions made in Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339, and in Day v. Micou, just decided, 18 Wall. 156.

Judgment in both cases

Mr. L. M. Day for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Thomas Allen Clarke for defendants in error.

Affirmed.

HARDY v. HARBIN.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 14. Argued October 15, 1874. Decided November 16, 1874.

After a careful examination of the proof relating to the identity of the appellants' ancestor with the grantee from the Mexican government, the court affirms the judgment of the court below, without deciding the questions of law.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. The appellants are the children of John Hardy. They allege that to their ancestor, under the assumed name of Thomas M. Hardy, the Mexican government issued a grant, October 23, 1843, for the premises in controversy; that the appellees, purchasers under a void sale of Hardy's interest, procured the commission, under the act of the 3d of March, 1851, to confirm to them the lands so granted as aforesaid to Hardy. The bill prays that the appellees may be compelled to convey to the appellants.

A demurrer to the bill was interposed upon the ground that the defendants were innocent purchasers, having no knowledge of the fraudulent character of the administrator's sale under which the confirmees purchased. The Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, who heard and decided the demurrer, overruled it, on the ground that under the allegations of the bill the sale at which the appellees purchased was absolutely void.

« PreviousContinue »