Conners Marine Co. v. Moran Towing Corporation

Full title: CONNERS MARINE CO., Inc., v. MORAN TOWING CORPORATION et al. BEARD'S ERIE…

Court: Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Dec 19, 1945

152 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1945)

Opinion

Nos. 146, 147.

December 19, 1945.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

In Admiralty. Libel by Conners Marine Company, Inc., against Moran Towing Corporation and Beard's Erie Basin, Inc., and libel by Beard's Erie Basin, Inc., against Conners Marine Company, Inc., and the Moran Towing Corporation, each of which libels arose out of the hanging up of a scow on pier belonging to Beard's Erie Basin, Inc., and damage to the bottom of a slip beside such pier. From a decree dismissing the libel of Conners Marine Company, Inc., and from an interlocutory decree holding Conners Marine Company, Inc., liable to Beard's Erie Basin, Inc., for damage done to the bottom of the slip, Conners Marine Company, Inc., appeals.

Decrees affirmed.

Edmund F. Lamb and Purdy Lamb, both of New York City, for Conners Marine Co., Inc.

Richard F. Lenahan, and Macklin, Brown, Lenahan Speer, all of New York City, for Moran Towing Corporation.

Norman M. Barron, and Burlingham, Veeder, Clark Hupper, all of New York City, for Beard's Erie Basin, Inc.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

There was a flat dispute between the witnesses whom the judge saw as to whether the broken pile in the pier projected beyond the other piles, and could possibly have hung up the scow in the way which the Conners Company asserts. Hankin, in his deposition, also swore that a week after the accident he found a diagonally projecting piece which stuck out three feet from the string piece; but that too contradicted the witnesses whom the district judge saw, and was inherently unlikely. Moreover, although the testimony of the bargee was at times somewhat rambling, it does not appear to us upon reading to be as unreliable as the Conners Company supposes, and it is quite clear that the district judge gave credence to it. There is no basis therefore, for holding that findings nine, ten and eleven are "clearly erroneous." The appeal was altogether without substance and should never have been taken.

Decrees affirmed.