Case Name: NELSON v. BAY S. S. CO. et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-04-08
Citations: 203 F. 975
Docket Number: No. 2,343
Parties: NELSON v. BAY S. S. CO. et al.
Judges: Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and SHEPPARD, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 203
Pages: 975–975

Head Matter:
NELSON v. BAY S. S. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 8, 1913.)
No. 2,343.
Collision (§ 85*) — Steam Vessel in Fog- — Fault.
A steamer passing down from Mobile to the bay in the daytime in a fog and near the west shore came into collision with a schooner coming up in tow alongside a launch. The steamer was proceeding at half speed, about four miles an hour, and had a lookout, and kept sounding fog signals, and she did not see or hear the other vessels until they were within about 75 feet, and then at once reversed. Held insufficient to show that the steamer was at fault.
[Ed. Noie. — For other cases, see Collision, Cent. Dig. §§ 166, 169; Dec. Dig. § 85.
Collision rules, speed of steamers in fog, see note to The Niagara, 28 O. O. A. 532.1
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama; Harry P. Toulmin, Judge.
Suit in admiralty by Frank Nelson, as owner of the fishing schooner Marietta, against the Bay Steamship Company, claimant of the steamer James A. Carney. From a decree in favor of respondent, dismissing the libel (192 Fed. 216), libelant appeals.
Affirmed.
Foster K. Hale, Jr., and T. M. Stevens, both of Mobile, Ala., for appellant.
Palmer Pillans, of Mobile, Ala., for appellees.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and SHEPPARD, District Judge.
For other eases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Itep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
From a consideration of the evidence in the transcript, we conclude that the steamboat James A. Carney was without fault in the collision with the schooner Marietta and the gasoline launch Gertrude, and therefore we concur with the District Judge in his opinion and decree.
Affirmed.