U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1899

Gannon v. Consolidated Ice Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided January 5, 1899 · Lacombe, Shipman, Wallace

91 F. 539; 33 C.C.A. 662; 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2051

Counsel

William H. Rand, Jr., for appellant., Peter S. Carter, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Thompson v. Winslow (District Court, D. Maine 1904)
O'Donnell v. Barnes-Ames Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1931)
O'Boyle v. Pennsylvania R. (District Court, E.D. New York 1926)
Neville v. Morrison Coal & Coke Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1925)
Donovan v. Frederick Starr Contracting Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 1923)
White v. Schoonmaker-Connors Co. (3d Cir. 1920)
White v. Upper Hudson Stone Co. (2d Cir. 1917)
The Three Brothers (District Court, S.D. New York 1905)
William H. Beard Dredging Co. v. Hughes (2d Cir. 1903)
Smith v. Booth (2d Cir. 1903)
Smith v. Booth (District Court, S.D. New York 1901)
Conners-Standard Marine Corp. v. Marine Fuel Transfer Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1955)
Taylor v. United States (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1946)
O'Donnell Transp. Co. v. M. & J. Tracy, Inc. (2d Cir. 1945)
Howard v. Dobbins-Trinity Coal Co. (2d Cir. 1940)
Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co. v. Olympic Forest Products Co. (District Court, W.D. Washington 1937)
O'Donnell v. Barnes-Ames Co. (2d Cir. 1932)
Hastorf v. Moore (District Court, S.D. New York 1899)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Gannon let to the Consolidated Ice Company, the appellant, his canal boat, for a per diem compensation, to he used in the transportation of ice. The appellant then contracted with one Sheehey to tow the boat from Troy to Crescent, on the Erie Canal, at the rate of seven dollars per trip. Sheehey was regularly engaged in the towing business, and he employed his own men and used his own horses in conducting it. While he was towing the boat, it was, by the negligence of his servants, run against a pier and injured. The appellant disclaims responsibility for the damage, insisting that Sheehey was an independent contractor, and, as his servants were not its servants, it is not liable for their acts.

The liability of the appellant does not rest upon the ground that the boat was injured by its servants, but upon the ground that it was injured by its subusers. They were not trespassers or strangers, but were using the boat, by the permission of the appellant, for the purposes of its bailment. The appellant could not absolve itself from its duty as bailee to take proper care of the boat by delegating that duty to another. The hirer of property is liable, not only for his own personal default or negligence in its custody, but also for that of any other person whom he permits to use it. Schouler, Bailm. § 145; Story, Bailm. § 400. The precise question now presented was con*540sidered by this court in Smith v. Bouker, 1 ,U. S. App. 80, 1 C. C. A. 481, and 49 Fed. 954, and decided adversely to the contention of the appellant. Of the eases cited by the appellant to sustain his contention, the only ones in point are Jackson v. Easton, 7 Ben. 191, Fed. Cas. No. 7,134, and McLoughlin v. New York Lighterage & Transportation Co., 7 Misc. Rep. 119, 27 N. Y. Supp. 248. We find nothing in the reasoning of these cases to lead v. to depart from our conclusions in Smith v. Bouker. The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.