US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


Subscribe to Cases that cite 99 U. S. 78 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Transportation Line v. Cooper, 99 U.S. 78 (1878)

Transportation Line v. Cooper

99 U.S. 78


A canal boat laden with coal for transportation, having on board the master, with his family, is not a "barge carrying passengers," within the meaning of sec. 4492 of the Revised Statutes, which requires that such a barge, while in tow of a steamer, shall be provided with "fire buckets, axes, life preservers, and yawls."

This suit was brought under the provisions of the statute of New York in the supreme court of that state by Hobart Cooper, as administrator of his wife, to recover damages for her death caused by a collision in the port of New York chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 99 U. S. 79

between a schooner which was in tow of the tug J. N. Parker and a canal boat loaded with coal whereof he was master, having on board his wife and children, and which with other boats was in tow of the steam tug U. S. Grant. The Eastern Transportation Line, owning one tug and J. J. Austin the other, were the defendants. Cooper, in the court below, had a judgment against them. The Eastern Transportation Line alone appealed to the general term. The judgment was affirmed there and subsequently on appeal by the Court of Appeals. This writ of error was then sued out.

One of the errors assigned is that the court charged the jury that

"there is no law requiring that a canal boat which is not used for the purpose of transporting passengers should be provided with life preservers or life boats or any paraphernalia of that kind."

The other errors are grounded upon exceptions to the charge which relate to questions not arising under any act of Congress.

The defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction, and united therewith, under the amended sixth rule, a motion to affirm the judgment below.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™