Potter Transp. Co. v. Franks
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United -States for the Southern District of New York. Suit in. admiralty for collision by the Potter Transportation Company against the steam tug Walter Franks, Walter E. Franks, claimant, and the steam tug Mary W. Potter, C. H. Chadwick & Co., claimant. From a decree dismissing the libel (299 Fed. 316), libelant appeals.
1Per curiam
Libelant’s barge was anchored wherever the Potter put her, and we agree with the court below that the chosen anchorage was proper, and the Potter therefore without fault.
The only question remaining is whether the Franks, moving across anchorage ground in a fog of remarkable density, and at the rate of *3203 miles an hour, was at fault for collision with libelant’s anchored barge, when that barge was not ringing her bell in the manner prescribed by the Inland Rules.
For the barge it is urged that her failure to ring bells according to rule did not contribute to collision; but the rule of law is that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- The PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- The HavenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- The EtruriaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1906
- Hardy v. The RaleighU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1890
3Cited by7 opinions
- North & South Shipping Co. v. Cherokee-Seminole S. S. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- The Socony No. 9Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- The DomiraCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- Arthur-Smith Corporation v. Gulf States Marine & Mining CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
- M. & J. Tracy, Inc. v. Williams Bros.District Court, E.D. New York · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.