Court Opinion

ID: 8852844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:19:48.22159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:33.495145
License: Public Domain

PEE CUEIAM.
Tbe case was tried in tbe district court upon oral testimony wbicb, except as to tbe giving of a signal of one *509whittle by tbe Dakota, is extremely conflicting. It is unnecessary to rehearse the facts as found by the district judge. They are fully set forth in his opinion, and we do not And sufficient in the case to warrant a reversal of such findings. The libelant contends that, even conceding the signals and movements of both vessels to be as found by the district judge, the navigation of the Dakota was faulty in that, having given a signal of one whistle, as she was entitled to do,' being the privileged vessel, thereby indicating an intention to cross the bow of the Baker, she thereafter stopped and reversed her engines, thereby confusing tne navigation of the Baker, and inducing her to abandon the attempt to pass under the stern of the Dakota, and to endeavor to cross» the latter’s how. The district judge, however, found that the collision happened near the New York shore, the Dakota being bound into her slip at Grand street, a special circumstance qualifying the rule that the privileged vessel should keep her course and, as libelant contends, her speed. The Baker knew that she was a ferryboat about to make her slip, and should have anticipated a checking of her speed. The difficulty with the Baker seems to have heen that she maintained too high a speed to allow her io conform her own movements to the course of the ferryboat. Decree of the district court affirmed, with costs.