Court Opinion

ID: 8849792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:09:05.781561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:27.434449
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Notwithstanding the new evidence introduced by the appellant since the decision of the cause by the district court, we are satisfied that the libelants’ canal boat was sufficiently strong and tight for the ordinary exigencies of her use as a coal boat, and that she did not sink in consequence of any defect in her condition, but that she was forced ahead, and brought in contact with the dock, by the impact of the steam lighter, and a hole thereby knocked into her bow. The occurrence was due to the carelessness of those in charge of the lighter. They used unnecessary violence in the attempt to move the canal boat. The lighter must accordingly be condemned for the damages. We should have been better satisfied if the commissioner to whom it was referred to ascertain and report damages had rejected the item allowed for repairs which were not made, but which he found were necessary to put the canal boat in as good condition as she was previous to the accident; but the proofs are not such as to justify us in overruling his conclusion and that of the district judge. The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.