Britain S. S. Co. v. J. B. King Transp. Co.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision. The 5 that cite it most often are listed here.
- The Mary P. Riehl (District Court, D. Maryland 1917)
- New York Central No. 18 (District Court, E.D. New York 1916)
- Sun Oil Company v. SS GEORGEL (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
- Marine Fuel Transfer Corp. v. The Ruth (2d Cir. 1956)
- Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (District Court, S.D. New York 1950)
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
The controlling question in the case is whether or not the steamer was substantially in motion. The district judge found that, although probably still forging ahead very slightly, and drifting up a little with the flood tide, she was almost, if not quite, at a standstill, preparing to anchor, and not under way. He heard some of the important witnesses, and there is no evidence presented sufficient to warrant a reversal of that finding. The witnesses for the steamer testify that she was not in motion. The respondent’s witnesses testified that when they first saw her she was apparently at anchor, and, although subsequently they state she was in motion, they yet admit that they did not see her moving through the water, and apparently infer merely that she must have been in motion because collision ensued. The steamer was practically a vessel not under way, was seen to be such by the navigators of the tug, and was so seen at a distance amply sufficient to enable the latter to avoid collision, had they not undertaken to shave too close.
The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.