tions, a large vessel, which, in occupying a wharf for considerable time, overlaps the wharf next adjoining, is liable pro rata, after notice and demand, according to the frontage actually occupied at the latter wharf, for the customary wharfage charged there, although it is not made fast to that wharf and does not use it to land cargo.1 Vessels have also the right to use a warp in getting in or out of harbor, if they do not interfere with navigation. They may extend the warp across the entire channel if no other vessels are passing; but must take notice of the approach of another vessel, and slacken the warp so as to allow sufficient space for the approaching vessel to pass, and give timely notice of the space so left. If this notice is disregarded, and injury results, the burden of proof will be upon the latter vessel. Where a collision occurs between a vessel which is at anchor, moored to a wharf, or in stays, and another which is in motion, the presumption of negligence is against the latter. This rule of admiralty, which is also 1088; Delaware River S. Co. v. Burlington Ferry Co., 81 Penn. St. 103 (case of ferry slips). 1 The Wm. H. Brinsfield, 39 Fed. Rep. 215; The Hercules, 28 id. 475; Ranstead v. Fahey, 44 id. 805. See The Cornwall, 10 Ben. 108; The City of Hartford, id. 150; Wall v. Pittsburgh Harbor Co., 152 Penn. St. 427. Projecting bow-sprits and parts of moored vessels must not interfere with navigation. The Fort Lee, 31 Fed. Rep. 570; The Mary Powell, id. 622; The City of Augusta, 30 id. 844; The Margaret J. Sandford, id. 714; The Industry, 27 id. 767; The Nicholson, 28 id. 889; The Martino Cilento, 22 id. 859. Under the New York constitution only an exclusive right to take shell-fish can be granted by the State. Slingerland v. International C. Co., 60 N. Y. S. 12. 2 Potter v. Pettis, 2 R. L. 483, 487; McCord v. The Tiber, 6 Biss. 409; Annett v. Foster, 1 Daly, 502; The Maverick. 1 Sprague, 23; 5 Law Rep. 106; The Hope, 2 W. Rob. 8; The Echo, 19 Fed. Rep. 453; The Swan, id. 455; The Fulda, 31 id. 351. A vessel entering a dock is not at liberty to disregard 4 Ibid. "The Charlotte Roab, 1 Brown Adm. 453; The City of Pekin, 14 App. Cas. 40; 6 Asp. M. C. 396. 6 The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 52; The Egyptian, 1 Moo. P. C. N. s. 373; The Otter, L. R. 4 Adm. 203; The Buckhurst, 6 P. D. 152; The Annot Lyle, 11 P. D. 114; The Indus, 12 P. D. 46: The Hornet, [1892] P. 361; The Meanatchy, [1897] A. C. 351; Cuthbertson v. Shaw, 18 How. 584; Ure v. Coffman, 19 How. 56; The Granite State, 3 Wall. 310; The Louisiana, id. 164; The Bridgeport, 14 id. 116; The Clarita, 23 id. 1, 14; Bill v. Smith, 39 Conn. 206; Baker v. Lewis, 33 Penn. St. 301; Austin v. New Jersey S. Co., 43 N. Y. applied by the common-law courts,1 is a presumption of fact which may be rebutted. Want of a proper watch, or neglect to show proper lights or signals at night, especially when lying in a navigable channel, or failure to observe statutory regulations,2 would be sufficient to overcome it,' if the neglect of such precaution contributed to the injury. A vessel 75; Foster v. Holly, 38 Ala. 76; The Fremont, 3 Sawyer, 571; The United States v. St. Louis, 5 Mo. 230; Buz zard v. The Petrel, 6 McLean, 491; The Indiana, Abb. Adm. 330; Sterling v. The Jennie Cushman, 3 Cliff. 636; The Lady Franklin, 2 Lowell, 220; The J. W. Everman, 2 Hugh. 17; Hall v. Little, 18 Alb. L. Journal, 151; 6 Rep. 577; The A. R. Whetmore, 5 Ben. 147; The Pennsylvania, 4 Ben. 257; Mercer v. The Florida, 3 Hugh. 488; The Midas, 6 Ben. 173; The Duchess, id. 48; The Planet, 1 Brown Adm. 124; The Masten, id. 436; Jerome v. Floating Dock, id. 508; The Milwaukee, 2 Biss. 509; Amoskeag Manuf. Co. v. The John Adams, 1 Cliff. 404; The Bridgeport, 7 Blatch. 361; 1 Ben. 65; The Helen R. Cooper, id. 378; The E. C. Scranton, 2 Ben. 25; The Baltic, id. 452; The Nebraska, id. 500; The Patterson, 3 Ben. 299; The Avid, id. 434: The Leo, id. 569; The City of Augusta, 30 Fed. Rep. 844; The City of Lynn, 11 id. 339; The Jeremiah Godfrey, 17 id. 738; Shields v. The Mayor, 18 id. 748; Henderson v. Cleveland, 93 id. 844; The Martha Davis, 94 id. 559. When a ship is about to be launched, and the navigation will thereby be obstructed temporarily, reasonable notice must be given to avoid collisions. The Vianna, Swa. Adm. 405; The Cachapool, 7 P. D. 217. The mere hoisting of a flag is not sufficient in such case. Malster v. Humphreys, 5 Hughes, 180. When a vessel which is hauled up on marine ways to be docked for the purpose of repairing her hull, breaks loose and collides with another vessel by reason of the insufficiency of her fastenings, the same principles govern as in ordinary cases of collisions, Baker v. Power, 14 Fed. Rep. 383. 1 Bill v. Smith, 39 Conn. 206. 2 The Maryland, 19 Fed. Rep. 551; The Albany, 91 id. 805; The F. W. Devoe, 94 id. 1019; The Cincinnati, 95 id. 302; The Benj. A. Van Brunt, 98 id. 131; The Talbot, [1891] P. 184. 3 Sproul v. Hemingway, 14 Pick. 1; Carsley v. White, 21 Pick. 254; The Julia, 2 Lush. 231; The John Fenwick, L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. 500; The Clara, 102 U. S. 200; Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Austin, 69 N. Y. 470; Whitehall Transp. Co. v. New Jersey S. Co., 51 N. Y. 369; Nelson v. Leland, 22 How. 48; Silliman v. Lewis, 49 N. Y. 379; The Victoria, 3 W. Rob. 52; The City of Baltimore, 5 Ben. 474; The Express, 1 Blatch. 355; Bill v. Smith, 39 Conn. 206; The City of London, Swa. Adm. 245; Browne v. Stone, 1 Phila. 241; 5 Clark, 75; Baltimore R. Co. v. Wheeling Transp. Co,, 32 Ohio St. 116; Billings v. Breinig, 45 Mich. 65; The Scioto, Davies, 359; The Saxonia, Lush. Adm. 419; The Industrie, L. R. 3 Adm. & Ec. 308; Rathbun v. Payne, 19 Wend. 399; Kennard v. Barton, 25 Maine, 39, 47; Union S. Co. v. Nottinghams, 17 Gratt. 115; The Clara, 13 Blatch. 509; The Indiana, Abb. Adm. 330; The Lyon, Sprague, 40; Lenox v. Winissimmet Co., id. 160; Cuthbertson v. Shaw, 18 How. 584; Ure v. Coffman, 19 How. 56; Sparks v. Saladin, 6 La. Ann. 764; Beyer v. The Nurnberg, 3 Hugh. 505. 4 Hoffman v. Union Ferry Co., 47 N. Y. 176; Mellon v. Smith, 2 E. D. lying at anchor in a gale, which has the power to avoid a threatened collision with another vessel,' or a wharf, or a boom, is bound to do so. So, the anchoring of a vessel at an unsafe and improper place is a negligent act, and if the improper anchorage is the proximate cause of a collision with a vessel in motion, no action, according to the principles of the common law, lies against the latter vessel to recover compensation, although in admiralty the loss would be divided if both vessels were at fault, even when the faults are independent. In the absence of a proved usage, a pound-keeper of logs is not an insurer, or liable for loss of logs in a storm, and without want of care on his part. A vessel which breaks from her moorings, and strikes a seawall or another vessel, is required to show affirmatively that the drifting was caused by Smith, 462; The Farragut, 10 Wall. 334; The Masters, 1 Brown Adm. 342; Meigs v. The Northerner, 1 Wash. Ter. 91; The Buckeye, 9 Fed. Rep. 666; Shirley v. The Richmond, 2 Woods, 58; The Clara Killam, 2 Quebec L. R. 56; The Oscar Townsend, 17 Fed. Rep. 93. 1The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164; The Worthington & Davis, 19 Fed. Rep. 836. 2 Stearns v. Hooper, 78 Cal. 341. 3 John Spry Lumber Co. v. The C. H. Green, 76 Mich. 320. 4 Strout v. Foster, 1 How. 89; 17 Pet. 107; The Electra, 6 Ben. 189; The Indiana, Abb. Adm. 330; Knowlton v. Sanford, 32 Maine, 148; The Thomas Carroll, 23 Fed. Rep. 912; La Bourgogne, 86 id. 475; The Monarch, 89 id. 875; The E. A. Packard, 10 Ben. 520; St. Louis & M. V. T. Co. v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 251. 5 Vennall v. Garner, 1 Cromp. & M. 21; Luxford v. Large, 5 Car. & P. 421; Dowell v. General Steam Nav. Co., 5 El. & Bl. 195; Vanderplank v. Miller, Mood. & M. 169; The Marcia Tribou, 2 Sprague, 17; The Scioto, 2 Ware, 366; Strout v. Foster, 1 How. (U. S.) 89; Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389; Lambert v. Staten Island R. Co., 70 N. Y. 104; Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Aus tin, 9 N. Y. 470; 3 Hun, 195; The Clarita, 23 Wall. 1, 14; Halderman v. Beckwith, 4 McLean, 296; Broadwell v. Swigert, 7 B. Mon. 39; Steamboat v. McCraw, 26 Ala. 189, 203; Adams v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 27 Mo. 95; Stephen's N. B. Digest, p. 285, pl. 1, 2; The David Dows, 16 Fed. Rep. 154. 6 Catharine v. Dickinson, 17 How. 170; Atlee v. Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389; The Morning Light, 2 Wall. 550; Union S. Co. v. New York S. Co., 24 How. 307; The Clara, 102 U. S. 300; The Rival, Sprague, 128; The Marcia Tribou, 2 Sprague, 17; O'Neil v. Sears, id. 52; The Comet, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 451; The Nautilus, Ware, 529; Vanderplank v. Miller, Mood. & M. 169; Simpson v. Hand, 6 Whart. 311; The Atlas, 93 U. S. 302; The S. Shaw, 6 Fed. Rep. 93; The Delaware, 12 id. 571; The Victory, 68 id. 395; The Edward Luckenback, 94 id. 544; The Catskill, 95 id. 700; The Eliza Keith, 3 Quebec L. R. 143. See 6 Jurid. Rev. 354. 7 The Monticello, 15 Fed. Rep. 474; The B. & C., 18 Fed. Rep. 543; The Nettie Sundberg, 100 id. 886. 8 Brown v. Cunard, 3 Allen (N. B.), 316. inevitable accident, and not by lack of proper precaution;1 but if the injury clearly results from vis major, unavoidable accident, or the act of a stranger, the loss is not to be borne by the owner. 3 § 97. Mooring-Reasonable time.- The right of moorage cannot be lawfully exercised in such a manner as to create a permanent obstruction to the navigation, even if the obstruction would be in the aid of commerce. A boom which obstructs the use of a river for navigation or floating lumber, or a raft of timber moored continually to its shores, is a public nuisance, as limiting the right of navigation; and, also, a private nuisance, if it causes peculiar injury to a navigator, or deprives the riparian owners of access to their premises." Keeping a raft moored for six weeks in one place has been held to be an unreasonable obstruction to the right of passage.7 The proprietors of a dock privilege constructed in front of their lots, upon the Hudson River at Albany, a floating store 1 The Louisiana, 3 Wall. 164; The Titan, 8 Ben. 7; The Christopher Columbus, id. 239; The Petunia, id. 349; The Queen of the East, 4 Ben. 103; The Johannes, 10 Blatch. 478; The Fremont, 3 Sawyer, 571; Bodin v. The Thule, 3 Woods, 670; The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212; The Agamemnon, 1 Quebec L. R. 333; The Buckhurst, 30 W. R. 232; Love v. Montgomery, 10 La. Ann. 113; The Florence P. Hall, 14 Fed. Rep. 408; The David Dows, 16 id. 154; The Waterloo, 100 id. 332; Cataraqui Bridge Co. v. Holcomb, 21 Q. B. (Can.) 273; Wilmot v. Jarvis, 12 id. 641; Stubbs v. Hilditch, 51 J. P. 758; Gifford v. McArthur, 55 Mich. 535; Stitler v. Winlack, 10 Penn. Sup'r Ct. 612. 2 See The Marpesia, L. R. 4 P. C. 212; The Schwan, [1892] P. 419; The Merchant Prince, id. 9, 179. 3 Campbell v. Penn. R. Co., 85 Fed. Rep. 462. 4 Arbo v. Brown, 9 Fed. Rep. 318; The Austria, id. 916; 14 id. 298; Dibble v. Seligson, 1 Woods, 406; The 6 Energy, 10 Ben. 158; The Eloina, id. 458; River Wear Com'rs v. Adamson, 2 App. Cas. 743; 1 Q. B. D. 546; The Merle, 31 L. T. N. s. 447; Seabrook v. Raft, 41 Fed. Rep. 596; The Wallace, id. 894; Neel v. Blythe, 42 id. 457; Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis Transp. Co., 120 U. S. 166; McCauley v. Logan, 152 Penn. St. 202. 5 Moore v. Jackson, 2 Abb. N. C. 211; Lowber v. Wells, 13 How. Pr. 454; Com. v. Fleming, Lewis's Crim. Law, 534; Bigler v. O'Connor, 32 Leg. Int. 355; Watts v. Tittabawassee Boom Co., 52 Mich. 203. So storing merchandise upon a street or road is not a lawful use of the public easement. Coburn v. Ames, 52 Cal. 385: Orton v. Harvey, 23 Wis. 99; Hundhausen v. Bond, 36 Wis. 29; Canoe Creek v. McEniry, 23 Ill. App. 227. 6 Harrington v. Edwards, 17 Wis. 586. 7 Enos v. Hamilton, 27 Wis. 256; 24 Wis. 658; Dzik v. Bigelow, 44 Pitts. L. J. 360. See Eagles v. Merritt, 2 Allen (N. B.), 550. house or vessel with a roof and convenient openings for re- 98. Wrecks-Care of. The duty of a person, using a navigable river as a highway, to exercise reasonable care and skill to prevent injury to other vessels, continues so long as he retains the management and control of the vessel. If he remains in possession, his liability is the same whether the vessel is in motion or stationary, floating or aground, under water or above it. This liability may be transferred with the transfer of the possession and control to another person. If an unavoidable accident causes a vessel to sink, the owner is not by the common law required to remove the impediment to navigation, which the wreck may create, or to mark its position by a buoy or light. If he abandons the vessel, his duty and responsibility ceases; but if he retains the possession and control, he is bound to take proper precautions for the safety of the public. These rules apply also where bridges, dams, 1 Hart v. Albany, 9 Wend. 570; 3 Paige, 213; People v. Vanderbilt, 26 N. Y. 287; 28 N. Y. 396; 38 Barb. 282; People v. Cunningham, 1 Denio, 524. But see Pilcher v. Hart, 1 Humph. 524; People v. Horton, 64 N. Y. 610; 5 Hun, 516. 2 McLean v. Mathews, 7 Brad. (Ill.) 599. See Larson v. Furlong, 63 Wis. 323. 3 Brown v. Mallett, 5 C. B. 599; White v. Crisp, 10 Exch. 312, 321. 4 Ibid. See The Liffey, 58 L. T. N. S. 351. 5 See O'Reilly v. New Brunswick, A. & N. Y. S. Co., 55 N. Y. S. 1133; 59 id. 261. Contra, under § 10 of the Act of Congress of Sept. 19, 1890, United States v. Hall, 63 Fed. Rep. 472. See infra, § 110, n. 6 Ibid.; King v. Watts, 2 Esp. 675; Hancock v. York Ry. Co., 10 C. B. 348; The Swan, 3 Blatch. 285. In England see now The Utopia v. The Primula, [1893] A. C. 492; The Crystal, [1894] A. C. 508; Barraclough v. Brown, [1897] A. C. 615; 74 L. T. 86: 76 id. 797; The Emerald, [1896] P. 192; The Victorian Marine Act, 1890; Smith v. Wilson, [1896] A. C. 579; The Greta Holme, [1897] A. C. 596. 7 Harmond v. Pearson, 1 Camp. 515; White v. Crisp, 10 Exch. 312; Brown v. Mallett, 5 C. B. 599; The Douglas, 7 P. D. 151; The Snark, [1899] P. 74; [1900] P. 105; Dormont v. Furness Ry., 11 Q. B. D. 496; The Edith, 11 L. R. Ir. 270; The Modoc, 26 Fed. Rep. 718; Ball v. Berwind, 29 id. 541; The River Mersey, 48 id. 686; 洱 |