Eastern S.S. Corporation v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., 1 Cir., 256 F. 497; and, within the section of the statute limiting liability knowledge means not only personal cognizance but also the means of knowledge — of which the owner or his superintendent is bound to avail himself — of contemplated loss or condition likely to produce or contribute to loss, unless appropriate means are adopted to prevent it. See The Chickie, D.C.Pa., 54 F. Supp. 19; The Mattie, D.C.N.Y., 38 F. Supp. 745, affirmed Jacobus Granwiller Co. v. Reichert, 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 904; Petition of Liebler, D.C.N.Y., 19 F. Supp. 829. Referring to the evidence on the subject of knowledge or means of knowledge on the part of the owner or his superintendent, again, the testimony of Professor Adams, on this phase of the case, is especially pertinent, that the certificate issued by the Coast Guard to the owner of the Admiral — stating that the tug had satisfactory stability for all reasonable operating conditions "subject to the following restrictions: * * * Tow line shall be maintained in as nearly a fore and aft line as practicable" — was virtually voided by this restriction; and that such restriction put the owner definitely on warning that the Admiral was a dangerous vessel to be handled with the utmost care. Here also is to be recalled the expert testimony of Captain Gilbey, that in his opinion it was important "to the tug, her crew, and her chances to survive a storm that the pilot be able to see h

Appeal from the District Court, of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. Proceeding in the matter of the petition of Harold J. Reichert, as owner, and the Reichert Towing Line, Inc. as charterer, of the tug Mattie, her engines, etc., in a cause for limitation of, or exoneration from, liability, opposed by Jacobus Grauwiller Company, Inc., and another, damage-claimants. From a decree exonerating petitioner from personal liability under Admiralty rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, 38 F. Supp. 745, the damage-claimants appeal. Affirmed.

The Cleveco, 6 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 605, 613. See States Steamship Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 458, 466, certiorari denied 1959, 358 U.S. 933, 79 S.Ct. 316, 3 L.Ed.2d 305; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Lloyd Brasileiro, 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 661, 665, certiorari denied 1947, 331 U.S. 836, 67 S.Ct. 1519, 91 L.Ed. 1849; The Mattie, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1941, 38 F. Supp. 745, 748, affirmed per curiam sub nom. Jacobus Grauwiller Co. v. Reichert, 2 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 904; Lord v. Goodall, etc., Steamship Co., C.C.D.Cal. 1877, 15 Fed.Cas. pages 884, 887, No. 8,506, affirmed 1880, 102 U.S. 541, 26 L.Ed. 224. The derrick was not a seagoing vessel.

The libelants were not required to prove privity or knowledge on the part of Denison. The Cleveco, 6 Cir., 154 F.2d 605; The Severance, 4 Cir., 152 F.2d 916, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 853, 66 S.Ct. 1344, 90 L.Ed. 1626; The E. Madison Hall, 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 589, certiorari denied W.E. Valliant Co. v. Rayomier, Inc., 322 U.S. 748, 64 S.Ct. 1159, 88 L.Ed. 1579; The Marguerite, 7 Cir., 140 F.2d 491; The Mattie, D.C., 38 F. Supp. 745, affirmed Jacobus Grauwiller Co. v. Reichert, 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 904. The courts have generally held that the statute providing for limitation of the owner's liability should be liberally construed.