Charles Warner Co. v. Independent Pier Co.
278 U.S. 85 (1928)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Charles Warner Co. v. Independent Pier Co., 278 U.S. 85 (1928)

Charles Warner Company v. Independent Pier Company

Nos. 22 and 23

Argued October 10, 1928

Decided November 19, 1928

278 U.S. 85

Syllabus

1. A steamship desiring to pass a flotilla of scows towed by a tug which she had followed on the flood tide up the Delaware River and thence into the still water of the Schuylkill, repeated a passing signal after making the turn, and upon receiving an assent from the tug, proceeded up the mid-channel of the Schuylkill, and collided with the scows, which had been swung across it laterally from the tug by the momentum imparted by the tide in the Delaware. Held, that the tug, by assenting to the passing, did not assume responsibility for the maneuver, and that the fault lay entirely with the steamship, as she should have anticipated the effect of the tide, and kept out of the way. P. 278 U. S. 89.

2. Objections to a decree made by respondents who did not themselves apply for certiorari are not to be considered. P. 278 U. S. 91.

20 F.2d 111 reversed; district court affirmed.

Certiorari, 275 U.S. 521, to a decree of the circuit court of appeals which modified the decree of the district court in a collision case. The petitioner, Charles Warner Company, owner or charterer of the tug Taurus and several scows, libeled, in rem, the steamship Gulftrade, one of the two respondents herein (Gulf Refining Company, claimant) and two tugs, the Triton and the Churchman. It also sought damages from the two tug owners in personam. The district court gave judgment against the Gulftrade and the Independent Pier Company, the other respondent herein, owner of the Triton, and dismissed the libel as to the Churchman and its owner. The circuit court of appeals decreed that the damages

Page 278 U. S. 86

should be divided between the petitioner and the respondents. The latter did not apply for certiorari.

Page 278 U. S. 87

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.