The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 71
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE JOIIN D. ROCKEFELLER 1
den, 22 Fed. Cas. 228, No. 12,908; The Magnolia, 16 Fed. Cas. 478,
 As all vessels navigating the Mississippi river should observe
these rules and customs, navigators have a right to expect their ob-
servance by each other.
 A rule of caution laid down by the courts-to be applied, how-
ever, with great dlscrinination--is that, when one esvel sees, or
should see. that another is disregarding the required precautions
against colnlsion, and fails to take reasonable precaution herself, in
view of the remissness of the other vessel, both will be held at fault.
The Aibert Dumols, 177 U S. 250, 20 Sup Ct 593. 44 L Ed 751;
Maria Martin. 12 Wall. 31, 20 L. Ed 251, The America, 92 U S 432,
23 L. Ed. 724; The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97, 7 Sup. Ct 1158, 30 L.
Ed. 1095; The New York. 175 U. S. 187, 20 Sup Ct 67, 44 1,. Ed.
126, The Pegasus (C. C) 19 Fed. 46; The Warren (D. C) 18 Fed.
559: The Einar v. The Ivanhoe (D. C.) 45 Fed. 497.
 Where it is evident to a navigator of a vessel that his signals
are misunderstood, he should immediately stop and reverse until his
signals are understood, and he will be held at fault for failure to do
so The Johnson, 9 Wall. 146, 19 L. Ed. 610; The Imperator (D C.)
76 Fed. 879; Brooklyn Ferry Co. v. U. S. (D. C.) 122 Fed 696; The
Peconic (D. C.) 124 Fed. 848; The Eugene F. Moran, 154 Fed. 41, 83
C. C. A. 153; The Dictator, 169 Fed. 789. 95 C. C. A. 255; The Tug
Boat No 6, 170 Fed. 306, 95 C. C. A. 502.
 Under the pilot rule above quoted the Rockefeller, as the as-
cending steamer, had the right and duty to give the first signal for
passing, and the navigator of the Falls City was bound to yield by
answering with the same signal. If, therefore, the Rockefeller gave
the signal of one blast, requiring a port to port passing, the navigator
of the Falls City was bound to give a like response, unless he regarded
the port to port passing dangerous; and in that event he was not allow-
ed to give a two blast signal, requiring starboard to starboard passing,
but his only right was to sound immediately the alarm signal, imme-
diately stop, and, if necessary, reverse his engine. Even if it be as-
sumed that the Rockefeller was on the wrong side of the river under
the custom of navigation, that did not exempt the navigators of the
Falls City from their obligation to assent to the one-blast signal of the
Rockefeller, the ascending steamer, as required by the pilot rules, or
even in the absence of a signal to navigate to starboard, so as to make
a port to port passage as required by both the statutory and pilot rules.
 According to the testimony of the officers of the Falls City and
the officers of the tugs. they observed the Rockefeller from one-half
mile to a mile distant, 200 to 500 feet from the New Orleans shore.
It was therefore evident to her navigator that the Rockefeller was
coming up on the New Orleans side of the river, and it should have
been evident to him that the Rockefeller was moving very slowly, en-
gaged in exchanging pilots. In this situation her witnesses testify
her navigator signaled for a starboard to starboard passing. He was
charged with knowledge that the Rockefeller would have to change her
course and immediately increase her speed in order to pass starboard
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/93/: accessed March 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.