The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-12-15
been allotted to them. and which was proper
RECEIVER DuvAL's ANSWER.

| RECEIVER DUvAL's ANSWER
| Henry r. Duval, receiver OF the Florida Rail
way and Navigation Company, has interposed
claim to the ST.. Nicholas and answers to the
the ST. Nicholas owned by him receiver.
| The collision with the draw bridge is admitted;
but he denies all negligence, He admits
that the bridge had been built across the
81. Augustine creek for a considerable
time. Its position was well known to all per-
sons engaged in navigating the inland route
| between the ports Of Savannah and Brunswick,
Ga, and also admits that the draw bridge was
marked by two red lights, one of which was in
| the center of the draw, and the other on tbs
western side of the draw, or abutment Of the
bridge. lHe denies that the lights were in the
position where they usually were when said
| bridge was closed, but on the contrary
states that they were In the position where
The master OF the ST. Nicholas was a pilot,
qualified and authorized navigator. The bridge
is well-known obstruction to navigation. The
tidal currents did not run parallel TO the bridge
piers, and 1t is too low aud Is not properly pro-
tected by fender piles The currents set In
diagonally to the bridge, and with the best OF
management are apt to carry boats against the
bridge so as to cause collisions. The Tybee road
crosses the river at a sharp point, and the tide
runs diagonaiy across both ebb and
going through the draw, strong
current, making II difficult to steer a vessel as
large as the st. Nicholas through the draw
without striking; such vessel is compelled to
pass safely. The master of the st. Nicholas
was unable to discover that the draw was closed
until said vessel was In 800 feet of the bridge,
or other short distance; he then discovered
that the draw was closed, and used every pre-
caution TO avoid a collision, He was in the
pilot house. and gave the proper signals to the
engineer to back her all he could which signals
were Immediately obeyed aud despite all their
lrecaution and the utmost care and diligence 10
avoid the collision, it was inevitable, and
shortly thereafter took place.
DUE TO NEGLECT.
The collision was wholly due to the neglect
of the parties in charge OF the bridge, who kept
the draw closed and placed the lights in such a
position as to cause him to believe it was open.
charge of the bridge of the coming of the
steamboat 1t was q dark night, with back
ground OF trees to the bridge aud the shadows
from the bridge, and it wac impossible for the
master TO discover that said draw was closed
any sooner than he did.
He denies that 1t was the schedule time of the
Tybee road. He denies that It was necessary
TO have any special lookout, except the master
himself, who was In the pilot house; that all
and singular the premises In the answer are
true, and are within the admiralty and mari
time jurisdiction OF the court.
The answer proceeds to recite the fact that
the claims Of llbelants and intervenors exceed
The full value of the steamboat, her tackle etc.,
and her freight for the voyage, that others than
said libelantS cnt intervenors claim to have
been injured by said collision and threaten suit
therefor. Respondent is the owner and repre-
sentative under his .receivership; aud while
contrasting the liability Of his vessel yet desir-
ing limitation of liability under the act of
congress made March 8, 1851, entitled ian act
limiting the liability OF ship owners and for
other purposes" as amended by the act of,
June %, 1884, sec. 10. aud Of June i9, 1885, Sec
4, respondent petitions the court and pro-
pounds and alleges as follows: Then follows a
recital of the facts of the collision
and claims of the libelants aud
other usual and necessary averments
to petition TO limit liability under the acts OF
congress aforesaid, with the prayer that If the
| libelants, intervenors and all others are found
entitled to recover they may have a decree for
only such proportion Of the damage sustained
% them n, as the value Of the steamboat bears to
the parties to the collision.
THE CLAIMS FOR LOSSES.
He further prays that all claims for loss,
damage or injury to persons or property by
reason of the premises, and for repairs may be
here determined in this court, and proportional
according to law, and that due appraisement
may be ordered made of said steamboat, her
mR ma tackle sss furniture etc and
therefor; and that further prosecution of all
and any suit or suits, or the commencement of
any suit suits against.the respondent and those
whom he represents as owners in respect to any
such claim or claims may be restrained by Or
der of this court, and enjoined therefrom.
In support of this answer il is insisted for the
respondent that the United States circuit court
| in Florida, by which the respondent was ap-
| pointed receiver, alone has jurisdiction of any
matter relating to the liability OF property in
| its custody, and unless that court has given
| leave to the plaintiffs to sue its receiver the
| libel and interventions should be dismissed In
support of this proposition; Barton VS.. Barber,
104 U. $. p. 1876. 1870. 1871. Hudretter vs.. Eliza
beth Oicloth Co., lie, U. 8. p. s94, 3oS. so4 are
| cited
1t will be sufficient In reply to suggest that
| these cases were decided before the act Of con-
| gress OF March g. 1887. Re. enacted Aug. 18.
| 1855, by which it is provided { at receivers may
DO sued without the leave of the court appoint
ing them. Vol n U. s. Statutes, p. 500, rs o.
s. Statutes, p. 463; By which 1t is provided that
| a receiver may be sued without the permission
Of the court by which he was appointed.
1t would be, in our opinion, moreover true.
| that IL q receiver appointed in ono district Of
| the United States should send into another O
| vehicle of commerce like the st. Nicholas that
vessel would be liable for any marine tort which
| it might commit altogether irrespective of
| authority to sue granted by the court by which
| the receivership was created. This statute
however is controlling. Central Trust Co. of
| New York VS.. st. Louis and T. Il. r, Co, 30 Fed.
| Rep. 42o-;.
| AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
more interesting question presented by the
answer and the arguments of the proctors for
| the respondent is this Can q suit ia admiralty
be maintained in the courts of the United States
| to recover damages for the death of a human
| being on the high seas or on waters navigable
| from the sea which is caused by negilgencef It
| is insisted that such a suit could not be main
OF state statute giving the right OF action
| therefor, and the cases Of the Harrisburg 1f9
.. = 1929, and the Alaska 100 U. 8. 201, are
| cited In support OF this proposition. It could
not be doubted that concerning the injuries
sustained by libelants which did not result ia
| death, 1t is competent for court of admiralty
under the general admiralty and maritime
| jurisdiction to adjudcate the question of liza
| bility, and to assess compensation In proper
| cases to the parties injured. 1t is moreover
| true that the laws of Georgia give a right OF
action in all cases for the homicide of wife. or
| Of husband, or of q parent, or OF a
| child where the death results from q
crime, or from criminal or other negligence.
| Code Of Georgia, 2971. Act of the General AS
| sembly Oct. "a, 1887. 1t is true that no lien
| is created by this statute on account of the
| death by negligence. The libelants
| who we're merely injured were
therefore properly before the court, and
the intervenors having rights by the Georgia
statute to proceed against the receiver by an
action In personam, IL service could be effected
for the recovery Of damage resulting from the
death Of those persons on whose account the
statute Of the state created the right Of action,
were on motion of the respondent and by his
petition for limiting the liability under the acts
OF congress necessarily made parties to this
proceeding and were restrained and enJoined
from proceeding to enforce their rights else
where.
EsToPPED BY HIS OWN ACTION.
The respondent Is therefore IN the opinion OF
the court. estopped by his own action from de-
nyiag the right of these parties to distribution,
II liability Is found, for It is nothing more, OF