cumstances may be such as to render the anchored vessel liable for failure to do so, where such measures can be resorted to without danger, and are but acts of common prudence.1 Sec. 110. Anchoring in exposed situations - Crowded harbors. Local regulations, municipal or state, may prescribe harbor regulations, and designate what places are to be used for anchorage grounds and what places are not.* Where necessity requires a vessel to anchor in an unlawful place or an exposed situation, it becomes its duty to use the utmost diligence to avoid collision by making its situation known to passing vessels by every means at hand; and having done this it is not chargeable with fault, the exigencies of the case affording justification for an otherwise fault. It should, however, occupy such unlawful anchorage no longer than necessity demands. The mere fact of anchoring in a dangerous situation is not of itself sufficient to charge a vessel with negligence, unless the situation is such that collision is reasonably to be apprehended in the ordinary course of navigation. The mere fact that the situation is so exposed that injury may be received through some mischance, or mistake of navigation, is not sufficient to render such anchorage negligence per se. The situation must be such as to make collision reasonably to be apprehended as liable to occur.3 In the absence of local regulations, vessels have the right to anchor in harbors wherever convenience suggests, so long as they do not unnecessarily obstruct navigation, and so long as they observe precautions to guard against injury proportioned to the exposed situation. Ves sels navigating in harbors are required to do so with the utmost caution. It is negligence to navigate across wellknown anchorage grounds except with the utmost care; and where the state of the weather is such as to render vision obscured, or navigation especially difficult, an attempt to cross such anchorage grounds may be negligence per se. It is not Sec. 111. Anchoring in navigable channels. negligence, necessarily, for a vessel to anchor in a navigable channel or passage-way used by commerce so long as sufficient room is left for the passage of shipping, proper precautions being used to notify others of its situation. However much more prudent it may be for a vessel coming to anchor L. J. 331; The D. S. Gregory, 2 Ben. 166. In the case of The E. A. Parker, 10 Ben. 520, a vessel was held not at fault for anchoring in an exposed situation within three hundred feet of the end of a pier, where vessels were in the habit of anchoring, notwithstanding the fact it was contrary to the harbor regulations. Where a ferry-boat in a dense fog ran into a bark which was anchored within the regular anchorage grounds in the harbor of New York, whose position was well known, it was held to be negligence to attempt to cross the anchorage grounds under the circumstances. The Ophelia, 44 Fed. R. 941. Where a steamer on a clear day, in attempting to pass an anchored vessel, passed so near that it grounded, and swinging round collided with it, it was held that the master was bound to know the channel, and the steamer was liable. Commercial Steamboat Co. v. Dutton, 2 Cliff. 537; The Delaware, 12 Fed. R. 571; The Planet, 1 Brown, 124. Where there is a common and known passage-way in a river for vessels to go to a certain wharf, no one has a right to obstruct access to it by anchoring so as to prohibit entrance, or so near as to expose vessels entering to unusual danger in doing so. In cases where necessity compels anchoring in such a situation, it should be for as brief a period as possible, and while there the master must exercise reasonable skill and care to avoid injury to others. Knowlton v. Sanford, 32 Me. 148. In the case of The Lucy D., 21 Fed. R. 142, it was held that where a vessel anchors in a narrow stream where there is a frequent passage of shipping, occupying nearly all the stream, it is under obligations to use extraordinary precautions to give notice of its situation, and, on receiving notice of actual danger, it becomes its duty to move. to withdraw entirely to one side of the channel, there is nothing in the general maritime law requiring it to do so; the only restriction imposed by law being that additional watchfulness and care are required where the situation is an exposed one. Where the channel is so narrow as not to afford sufficient room for the safe passage of vessels on one side at least of the anchored ship, such anchorage is unlawful.2 Although the anchorage is unlawful, it affords no justification for wilful conduct on the part of another in colliding with it, nor for conduct so negligent in its character as to amount to wilfulness. Nor will such improper anchorage exempt another from bearing its proportion of the loss, where it appears that the collision might have been avoided by the use of ordinary prudence.3 An approaching vessel is bound to use ordinary care and skill, notwithstanding the other is unlawfully anchored. Where the unlawful anchorage is not justified by stress of circumstances the negligence of both will divide the damages. Where the occupation of prohibited anchorage is excusable by reason of necessity, and ordinary care and precaution are taken, improper anchorage will not bar a full recovery for damages resulting from the negligent conduct of the other. 1 The Oscar Townsend, 17 Fed. R. 93; The Indiana, Abb. Adm. 330; The Worthington & Davis, 19 Fed. R. 836; The J. W. Everman, 2 Hughes, 17; The S. Shaw, 6 Fed. R. 93; The Masters, 1 Brown, 342; The Electra, 6 Ben. 189; Green v. The Adelaide, Taney, 575; The Marcia Tribon, 2 Spr. 17; The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. R. 919. 2 The Milligan, 12 Fed. R. 338. 3 The Bedford, 5 Blatch. 200; The Shaw, 6 Fed. R. 93; Green v. The Helen, 1 Fed. R. 916; Adnis v. Wiggins, 27 Mo. 95. 148; The Indiana, 1 Abb. Adm. 330; The Scioto, 2 Dav. 359; Ware, 360. Anchoring in the middle of a navigable river nineteen hundred feet in width, leaving sufficient room on either side for the passage of vessels, was held not to be improper. The Ogemaw, 32 Fed. R. 919. In the case of The Alabama, 18 Fed. R. 831, it was held to be an unlawful and negligent act for a vessel to cast its anchor in shallow water, where other vessels are accustomed to pass, without indieat 4 Knowlton v. Sanford, 32 Me. ing its presence by a buoy, and Sec. 112. Dragging anchor. It is the duty of a vessel at anchor not only to select a lawful situation, but to anchor with all precautions the situation admits of. It is not required that a vessel shall cast its full complement of anchors under all circumstances, but it is required to put out enough to maintain it in position and to prevent it from coming in contact with others. In case of neglect to put out additional anchors, or to give sufficient cable for the proper operation of the anchor already out, it will be held liable for damages, where it appears that the collision might have been avoided had additional precautions been taken.' Where, however, the circumstances of the case are such that an additional anchor will not prevent the collision, or will be unavailing if cast, a ship will not be held at fault for not attempting to do a useless thing. Where vessels are brought into such close relations through the failure of their anchors to hold, it becomes the duty of the one best situated to do so, to move as soon as the exigencies of the case permit, that a vessel so anchoring is liable for injuries received by another coming in contact with the anchor. In the case of Morton v. Five Canal-boats, 24 Fed. R. 500, it was held that in the absence of necessity it was negligence to anchor near the entrance to a slip on a cable extended so that the vessel almost reached the wharf, and lying diagonally across a slip, the rules of the port forbidding anchoring nearer to shore than two hundred feet. Where a sailing-vessel, proceeding down the Delaware river, anchored at night in mid-channel, in range of the government lights, and a tug following, not observing that she was at anchor, collided with it, it was held that the con luct of the sailing-vessel tended to produce the collision and it was in fault. The S. Shaw, 6 Fed. R. 93. Where a sloop anchored near the range lights in a narrow channel, leaving only eighty feet for the passage of vessels, it was held to be negligent in anchoring in so exposed a situation without leaving sufficient space for the passage of others. The Brazil, 12 Fed. R. 338. 1 The Anerly, 58 Fed. R. 794; The Energy, 10 Ben. 158; The John Tucker, 5 Ben. 366; The Wier v. The Padre, 29 Fed. R. 335; The Lillian M. Vigus, 22 Fed. R. 747; The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164; The Eloina, 10 Ben. 458; The Queen of the East, 4 Ben. 103; The Mary Frazer, 26 Fed. R. 872. 2 The Carl Frederick, 33 Fed. R. 589. It is the duty of vessels to be provided with the usual number of anchors, of a character adapted to the vessel they are designed to serve, and with such appliances for their use as are usual and necessary.* without incurring additional risk. 3 Sec. 113. Vessels drifting. It is negligence to cast a vessel helplessly adrift in a crowded thoroughfare where there is danger of collision by reason of inability to control its movements. A vessel so cast adrift assumes all risk from the danger it invites. The law presumes that every vessel is provided with anchors, and the necessary equipments requisite to its proper navigation, and a crew sufficient to manipulate the appliances aboard, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed that a drifting vessel does so voluntarily, and will be held accountable for the danger it inflicts. Where it appears that the vessel was set adrift by the negligence or wilfulness of another, whose duty it is to protect it, not only the drifting vessel is liable for the damage it inflicts, but also the party by whom it is set adrift. But where there is no duty owing by the party abandoning it, there is no personal liability for damages done by it, where it does not appear that the party abandoning it does so with the design of inflicting injury, or under such circumstances that it is negligence of itself to cast adrift a The Wallace, 41 Fed. R. 894. 2 Hadden v. The J. H. Rutter, 35 Fed. R. 365. Where the owner of an anchored vessel has reasonable notice of the insufficiency of his anchorage and the danger of dragging his anchor, he takes the risks of remaining in the position, and is liable for damages that might have been avoided by moving. The Sharpee She, 60 Fed. R. 928. Where a vessel dragged her anchor during a storm, the approach of which was plainly visible, and the officers and crew neglected to put out a second anchor until after the storm had reached such a height that the additional anchor became of no avail, it was held that the vessel was solely at fault for a collision between it and a vessel properly moored at a safe distance. The Carl Konow, 64 Fed. R. 815. 3 Wilson v. The Envoy, 1 Phila. 138; Parrott v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 2 Sweeney (N. Y.), 93. 4 The A. R. Wetmore, 5 Ben. 147; The Austria, 9 Fed. R. 916; The Media, 45 Fed. R. 79. 5 The Chickasaw, 38 Fed. R. 358. |