Year: 1861

! The following steamboat case appears in the st.
! Louis Democrat


| LAsALLE, ILL.,. Feb. 4-In fulfment of my prom
Use to give you note of any items of general inter
crest that might occur to me during my absence,
shall proceed to give you brief synopsis Of the
/ proceedings and result of the great fatbOat and
steamboat case which has Just been lgated IN the U.
S. District Court of Iowa. held at Keokuk, wherein
one Frederick Zugg, of KeOkuk. master and owner
of the produce fiat Stillvater' libelant, and
steamer q DR.. Kane and owners were defendants,
your humble servant being witness for the defense
The circumstances attending the case substan-
| TALLY these: During the month of December the
steamer DR.. Kane, while descending the upper Mis-
sssippi river, below ClarksVille, hailed by the
libelant in this case and the captain requested to
! take his produce boat in tow fer st. Louis.
line was thrown to them, and his boat attached
thereby to the steamer, Immediately after which,
ard before the fatbOat was properly secured for
towing, the clerk of the steamer went on board the
fatbOar, and informed the master that his hatboat
would be towed at his own risk, and upon no other
conditions, TO which he assented and the boat was
properly made fast for towing. The steamer had at
the same time another produce hatboat In tow
the starboard side, the boat Of the belant being
on the larbOard side After taking the Saltwater in
tow the feet reached Grimes Bar, IN crossing which
the fatbeat on the starbOard rubbed hard, causing
the steamer swing and part her stern line and TOW
line leaving her attached by the head line only. The
steamer swung clear around, snd backed over the
bar drawing the fatboat over by her head line
(the channel below the crossing is narrow, and the
shore rough one, being lined with logs and snags)
and whilst every effort was being made to secure
the iatboat, when had broken loose, (the steamer
being unmanageable and drifting with the currently
the atboat of the libelant was drifted on to snag
and so damaged as to cause her to fill with water
and sink.


The libelant took the ground.


Ist. That the steamboat in this case was a com
mon carrier, and as such was as much liable for
said aatboat and cargo as for any other freight


I'd. That failing to establish that position, they
should fall back and take the position that as baee
for hire, y the steamer had not been managed with
ordinary care and skill but on the contrary that
the accident was the result Of gross negligence.


The defense took the ground that the steamboat
was not common carrier, but as bailee for hire,
had merely undertaken to proy al the atboat to st.
Louis for consideration, no. having assumed the
control of either the boat her cargo the master
and owner still retaining full possession, even TO
eating and sleeping abord andlfurther that contract
had been made that the steamer should not be liable
for unavoidable accidents. unless it could be shown
that there was a want of skill and ordinary care
IN the management Of the steamer. The Judge; IN
makeing the decision, held


lst That the great weight Of authority, as well
as the reason of law is against holding steamboats,
in towing atboats to the strict liability Of common
carriers, relying mainly upon the decisions Of the
great States Of New York and Pennsylvania, (Which
had been quoted by the defense, and the fact that
the hatbOat remained in possession Of the owner
If the owner abandoned the hatboat when IL was
taken in tow he thought it would make difference;
He should therefore under the circumstances, mold
the steamer not to be common carrier


The case was therefore, decided against the hDel
ant and in favor of the steamer.