200 federal eepobtbb. �Thomas Fawcett & Sons v. Steam Tow-Boat L. W. Morgan. (District Court, W. D. Pennsyhania. Fdliruary 7, 1881.) �L ColIilSION ToW-BOAT CHAHNBL — BAEGBS AT ANCIIOB — TOW IN �Motion. �Where barges were so moored as to encroach upon the tow-boat channel of the Ohio river, and be in the way of descending coal-tows, such tows being unwieldy and without sufficient steam-power to resist the force of the current, held, that the rule which requires a 8teann;r in motion to steer clear of a vessel at anchor was not applicable to a descending tow-boat, whose tow strucli the exposed barges, and that the tow-boat was not liable for damages, there being no want of , proper efEort on its part to avoid the collision. �2. Same— Barges Anchorbd m Channel— Mode of Natisating Tow. �Where there are two commonly-practiced and approved modes of navigating tow-boats with coal-tows past a certain point, parties who have there placed their barges so as to encroach upon the tow-boat channel, and be in the way of descending coal-tows, have no right to complain that a descending tow-boat did not pur^ue that one of the two modes which was the safer for the barges in their exposed situa- tion, when those navigating the tow-boat did not know or have rea- BOB to suspect the barges were there until it was too late to change the mode of running the point. �3. Saue — Verdict ra Common-Law Action — Oontributort JCTegli- �GBNCB — EVIDENCB. �The owners of the tow-boat brought a common-law action against the owners of the barges for damages sustained by the collision, alleg- Ing that it was caused by the defendants having negligently and unlawfully obstructed the channel, and there was a general verdict and a judgment thereon for the defendants. Held, that in a suit in admiralty by the owners of the barges against the tow-boat, the judg- ment in the action at law was not conclusive against the tow-boat, even to the extent of flxing upon the latter contributory negligence, it not appearing upon what ground the jury based their verdict, and one of the def enoes sub'mitted to them being that the barges were in oircumstances of distress from a previous disaster, and the emergency such that the owners were excusable in putting them where they did. �In Admiralty. �AcHEsoN, D. J. Late on the afternoon of November 25, 1874, the libellants' steam tow-boat Boaz, having in tow nine barges loaded with coal, left Pittsburgh bound for Louisville. The stage of water in the Ohio river was about eight and one- half feet — an ordinary coal-barge rise. Shortly after 6 o'clock ��� �
