The Seven Bells

Good Law
154 C.C.A. 43·241 F. 43·1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1734
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 5, 1917No. 2760California674 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ross, J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1] In this case the carrier furnished a barge without motive power, which power was supplied under a written contract between the owners of the Seven Bells, extending for six months with the privilege of renewal, by the express terms of which they were to “haul all freight and express” for the transportation company for- a stated sum to be paid each mouth, and to furnish “towboat and men to handle cargo to the extent of three men [and] also fuel for the run.” That was not, in our opinion, a mere contract of towage, but one of carriage, and under it we think the launch and the barge became one instrumentality in the voyage; the owner of the barge becoming owner of the launch pro hac vice, and the liability of the one instrumentality that of carrier. The Columbia, 73 Fed. 226 , 19 C. C. A. 436 , and cases there cited.

[2] The record shows that one Gilmore was captain of the launch, was in charge of the operations in question, and made two starts on the *46 voyage — the first about 7 o’clock of the evening of December 30, 1913, from the San Francisco seawall, at a time when a storm was prevailing. After proceeding almost as far as Alcatraz…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.