Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Conners Marine Co.

The liability of the tug, “Matton No. 20,” depended upon questions of fact which were determined by findings of the District Court. We have examined the *111evidence and cannot say that the findings were “clearly erroneous.” Petterson L. & T. Corp. v. New York Central R. Co., 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 992. Nor can we see sufficient reason to charge the tug, “Ralph E. Matton,” for failing to sound a signal— presumably an “alarm” — after she saw that the eastbound tow was in motion. The lines to the first and fourth barges (the only barges made fast) had been cast off, and presumably they could not then…