Legal Opinion

The Australia

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided February 3, 1903No. 1,084PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. The barge Maida, bound down the river Ste. Marie in tow of the steamer Marina, came into collision with the barge Australia, bound up the river, in tow of the steamer Italia, the Maida receiving considerable damage. The-collision occurred on a bright afternoon in May, 1898, in that part of the river known as the “Little Rapids Cut.”

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. The barge Maida, bound down the river Ste. Marie in tow of the steamer Marina, came into collision with the barge Australia, bound up the river, in tow of the steamer Italia, the Maida receiving considerable damage. The-collision occurred on a bright afternoon in May, 1898, in that part of the river known as the “Little Rapids Cut.” That cut is an artificial channel 300-feet wide, between navigable banks. There is a current through this cut of about four miles. There is a cross-current setting around the…

1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge

Within a proper distance the two steamers agreed to pass port to port. The navigable channel was 300 feet wide. The day was clear. There ought to have been no difficulty in these two tows passing each other if properly equipped and navigated. That the two barges should, under such circumstances, come into collision, strongly indicates that there was negligence in the navigation of one or both. Both barges were under obligation to follow in the wake of their steamers. The steamers did pass port to port in safety. The barges were both unusually long, the Maida 391 feet and the Australia 390…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. The OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. The City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. The LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
  4. Weeks v. Wilson Transit Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
  5. The OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. The SeveranceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1945
  2. Atkins v. LorentzenCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
  3. Navegacion Castro Riva v. the M.S. NordholmDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1959
  4. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., as Owners of the M/v Nonsuco v. Panama Canal CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
  5. Minnesota S. S. Co. v. Lehigh Valley Transportation Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API