TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The William E. Ferguson

The William E. Ferguson, 108 F. 984 (2d Cir. 1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 10, 1901
Docket
No. 133
Judges
Bhipman, Lacombe, Wallace
Citations
108 F. 98448 C.C.A. 1731901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3853
Cited by 6
Headnotes
Collision — Damages—Review on Appeal. The finding óf a commissioner, approved by the court, as to the cost of repairing a vessel injured in collision, based on the testimony of experts, the repairs not having been made, will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly incorrect.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the district court, Eastern district of New York (102 Fed. 699), in favor of libelant for $604.51 damages and $131.50 costs ($736.01 in all), for damages sustained by the ■canal boat T. F. Accles by reason of a collision with a steamship in tow of the steam tug William, E. Ferguson. An interlocutory decree referred the question of damages to a United States commissioner, and his report was sustained by the district judge, exceptions thereto being overruled. The ■appeal is brought solely as to the amount and extent of damages.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

The testimony taken upon the reference shows that a survey ivas held on the injured boat, the master (libelant) pointing out what damage had been done. The results of the survey, with recommendations, were set down in writing, and the person who made it testified to its accuracy. Xone of the repairs called for by the survey were made, the libelant, for satisfactory reasons, having concluded to alter her over into an open boat. In consequence no proof could be given of the actual cost of making the repairs, and it became necessary to call ship carpenters to testify what would have been the fair and reasonable value of making them. Three of these experts testified. One of them (Cahill), a man of 35 years' experience in his business, and one of the two persons who made the original survey, gave such amount as §465. Another (Bushey), who altered her into an open boat, estimated the value of such repairs at §(>30.0-1. A third (Murphy), a man of 40 years’ experience, and who examined her two weeks after the accident, and made a written report of her condition, which does not entirely agree with the survey, estimated (he value of the necessary repairs at §100.12. The commissioner found the fair value of necessary repairs to be §524.15. All the witnesses testified before him, and there is no reason shown for rejecting his conclusion. The allowance of interest from the date of the disaster is proper, and 10 days’ demurrage at §3 a day is justified by the proof. Decree of district court affirmed, with interest and costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1912: 11920: 11926: 11930: 21931: 119122026peak 1930 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. The Rosalia264 F. 285 (2d Cir. 1920)
  2. The Elmer A. Keeler194 F. 339 (2d Cir. 1912)
  3. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Downer Towing Corporation11 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1926)
  4. The Salutation37 F.2d 337 (2d Cir. 1930)
  5. Guinan40 F.2d 277 (E.D.N.Y. 1930)
  6. The Mollie Scully52 F.2d 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1931)

Most recent

  1. The Mollie Scully52 F.2d 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1931)
  2. Guinan40 F.2d 277 (E.D.N.Y. 1930)
  3. The Salutation37 F.2d 337 (2d Cir. 1930)
  4. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Downer Towing Corporation11 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1926)
  5. The Rosalia264 F. 285 (2d Cir. 1920)
  6. The Elmer A. Keeler194 F. 339 (2d Cir. 1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list