Maine Cent. R. v. Austin

I concurred in the original decision with hesitation, and upon further consideration it seems to me *671that we were wrong in rejecting the concurrent findings of fact of the board of inspectors and the District Judge. The evidence is very conflicting, and I do not think a case of clear error on their part is made out. See Lake Drummond Canal Co. v. Roper Lumber Co., 252 Fed. 796, 164 C. C. A. 636. Both of them found that the Morse was moving backward at the time of the collision. If so, her previous speed becomes immaterial, except upon the theory that she had not completely backed out of the…