TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coastwise Transp. Co. v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co.

Coastwise Transp. Co. v. Baltimore Steam Packet Co., 148 F. 837 (4th Cir. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 8, 1906
Docket
No. 649
Judges
Goff, Pritchard
Citations
148 F. 83778 C.C.A. 5271906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4383
Headnotes
Admiralty — Review on Appeal — Finding op Fact. A finding of fact by a court of admiralty on the conflicting testimony of witnesses examined in open court will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent Dig. vol. 1, Admiralty, $ 770.]
Summary
Appeal from District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.

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 appellant’s schooner, Henry W. Cramp, and the appellee’s steamer, Georgia, were in collision on the morning of January 31, 1904, in the vicinity of Old Point Wharf. At the time of the collision the Cramp was at anchor, while the Georgia was on her way to Norfolk. The steamer was considerably injured by the collision, and this is a libel in personam against the owner of the Cramp to recover damages. The court below found that at the time of the collision there was a fog in that vicinity, that the Cramp was not ringing a fog bell, and that the navigation of the Georgia was free from fault. A decree in consonance with such finding was entered, and from it this appeal is prosecuted.

As to the condition of the weather at the time of the collision, there is a conflict in the testimony, and practically the only question at issue that the court below had to determine was whether or not fog signals should have been given by the Cramp. It is admitted that the Cramp did not sound any such signals. All of the libelant’s witnesses were examined in open court, as was also the master of the respondent. The rule is well established, and no authorities are necessary to support it, that under such circumstances an appellate court will hesitate long before reversing a decree based on questions of fact so found. The opinion of the court, which has our approval, is found in (D. C.) 139 Fed. 777 .

There is no error in the decree complained of, and the same is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1921: 11935: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dempsey v. Eastern Transp. Co.275 F. 350 (4th Cir. 1921)
  2. Norfolk & Washington, D. C., Steamboat Co. v. United States74 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Norfolk & Washington, D. C., Steamboat Co. v. United States74 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1935)
  2. Dempsey v. Eastern Transp. Co.275 F. 350 (4th Cir. 1921)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v. Coastwise Transp. Co., 139 F. 777 (E.D. Va. 1905) 6

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