
    The Sammie. The City of Springfield. Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co. v. The Sammie et al. Luther et al. v. The City of Springfield et al.
    
    
      (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    
    October 15, 1888.)
    1. Collision — Keeping Out of the Way — Safe Margin — Tide Currents.
    A steamer bound to keep out oí tbe way must, at ber own peril, shape ber course for a safe margin against tbe contingencies'of navigation, and tbe effects of tide currents. Held, in tbis case, tbat tbe conflict in tbe evidence was probably in part to be explained by tbe westward set of tbe flood-tide off Twenty-Third street, which changed to tbe westward tbe course of the S., a steamer 300 feet long, as she struck tbe current, and tbat tbe collision was by ber fault only.
    2. Same — Tug and Tow — Sudden Backing — Parting Lines — Error of Judgment in. Extremis.
    Tbe collision being with a heavy car-float in tow along-side a tug, and tbe S. conten ding tbat tbe float bad broken loose from the tug just before tbe collision, through tbe tug’s too sudden backing, which tbe tug denied, 7ieMtbat, even if the lines were parted, as alleged, before tbe collision, the tug’s backingwas made necessary by the fault of tbe S. when tbe danger was imminent, and tbat the error, if there was any error, was one of judgment, under tbe excitement of tbe moment, and not a legal fault.
    In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. See 29 Fed. Rep. 928.
    Cross-libels for collision by Thomas B. Luther and others, claimants of the steam-tug Sammie, against the Hartford & New York Transportation Company, claimant of the steamer City of Springfield. A decree was rendered dismissing the libel against the Sammie, and sustaining that against the City of Springfield.
    
      FramUin A. Wilcox and Geo. B. Adams, for Hartford & New York Transportation Company.
    
      E. D. McCarthy, for Luther et al.
    
   Lacombe, J.

It is conceded that if each vessel had kept her course after sighting they would have passed safely. The district judge has found, amid much conflicting testimony ‘given by witnesses whom he saw and heard, that -the Springfield changed her course so as to get from the Brooklyn side of mid-river into the Sammie’s water, and ‘that the Sammie did not change her course, or, at least, did not change it sufficiently-to bring her to the eastward of the track which,, by the first exchange of signals, she was justified in following. The new testimony only goes to show: First. That one supposed contributing cause of the Springfield’s change of position (to-wit, the tide) was not as efficient as the district judge supposed. Second. That when a tug with a car-float lashed to its side has to carry a starboard helm, in order to keep her course, the effect of suddenly letting her helm run amidships will be to give her a swing to starboard. This fact in navigation was no doubt well enough known to the district judge without any testimony. Third. Persons who, two years before testifying, had seen the hole in the bow of the City of Springfield, gave evidence as to the appearance of the wreckage, and to their opinions as to the relative positions of the steamer and the car-float at the moment of collision. There is nothing in this to call for any modification of the decree of the district court, which is therefore affirmed.  