the other has been; and the fact that either the tug or tow has been at fault constitutes no bar to the right of the other to recover. In like manner they are severally liable to such third vessel for injuries inflicted by them in their individual capacities.1

Where a tug under the exclusive charge of its master is employed in the usual course of its business in towing a vessel, when the latter does not direct or undertake to manage its navigation, but follows as nearly as possible its lead, the tow is under no obligation to see that the tug is navigating in a safe and proper manner, and that it is complying with the rules of navigation. It has a right to rely upon the ability of the tug to direct it in a proper course, and that its navigation will be lawful and regular. Its duty consists in following the course of the tug without deviation; this done its liability ceases.2

Sec. 123. When treated as a single vessel.— A tug and its tow are treated as one vessel under certain circumstances and as individual vessels under others. In respect to a compliance with the general navigation rules the tug and tow are treated as one vessel, and that a steamer, subject to the rules applicable to steam-vessels; the reason being that the tow is dependent upon the other for its motive power

1 The Alabama, 1 Ben. 476.

2 The Dorris Eckhoff, 50 Fed. R. 135; The Margaret, 94 U. S. 494; The Charles Allen, 11 Fed. R. 317; The Alabama, 1 Ben. 476; 11 Blatch. 482; 92 U. S. 695; The Belknap, 2 Low. 281; Westhoff v. The Oluff, 3 Woods, 667.

Where a steam-tug had a ship in tow and both vessels were in charge of a pilot appointed by the owners of the ship, and the tug negligently caused the ship to collide with another, it was held that the tug was liable. The Rescue, 2 Spra. 16.

Where a sailing-vessel was char

tered and the master employed a tug to take it out to sea upon the request of the owner of the cargo, it was held that the fact that a pilot in the general employment of the cargo owner was employed by the tug to pilot the tug and tow across a bar did not create a liability on the part of cargo owner; that the pilot so employed was the servant of the tug and not of the tow, and that the tug was liable for negligently running the tow aground. The Martin Kalbfleisch, 55 Fed. R. 336.

and has no control over its own movements. Where, however, the tow is attached to the tug in such manner that it has a semi-independence of movement, it is considered an independent vessel so far as its unlawful acts are not attributable to the tug and are the result of its own misconduct, as where it fails to follow the wake of the tug or deviates from the course of the other. So far as its own negligent acts are concerned it is a separate and independent vessel, solely liable, as the damages result from its own conduct.2 Under situations where its acts are not identical with those of the tug, but are independent of it, the tow and not the tug is responsible. Where there are several distinct members to the tow, there may be a liability on the part of the tug to some and not to others; and as between themselves the various members of the tow may have a right of action against each other independent of the tug, or jointly with it, against each other. The fact that one of the members of the tow is guilty of contributory negligence is no bar to the right of the others to recover.3

It is not the policy of the courts to require as strict a compliance with the navigation rules on the part of a tug incumbered with an unwieldy tow as is demanded of a vessel free to act independently, for the reason that it has not the same control over its movements and the freedom of action that an ordinary steamer has. As between a steamer and a

1 The James Berwind, 44 Fed. R. 693; The Herbert Manton, 14 Blatch. 37; The Express, Olc. 258; Stetson v. The Gladiator, 41 Fed. R. 927; The Fred W. Chase, 31 Fed. R. 91; The J. H. Gautier, 11 Am. L. Reg. 769; The Favorite, 9 Fed. R. 709; The Ant, 10 Fed. R. 294; The Civilita, 13 Otto, 699; The Pennsylvania, 3 Ben. 215; The Sam Ratan, 20 Fed.

R. 333.

2 The Percy Birdsall v. The Invertrossocks & The James McCauley, 55 Fed. R. 683; Sturgis v. Boyer, 24

How. 110; The Annie Williams, 20
Fed. R. 866.

3 The Morton, Brown, Adm. 137; The Galileo, 28 Fed. R. 469.

In the case of The Uncle Abe, 18 Fed. R. 270, a canal-boat having broken from its tug fastened on to the tow of another tug by the tacit consent of the latter, its lines being insufficient to withstand the strain caused by an effort of the tug to avoid collision. Held, that the tug was not liable.

tug with a heavy tow, the tug and tow are to be treated as a sailing-vessel, and the duty of avoiding them is imposed upon the steamer. As between it and a sailing-vessel, the tug and tow, as a general rule, are obliged to keep out of the way; but where the sailing-vessel has the wind free and is so situated that it can easily avoid the tow, especially when the latter is large and cumbersome, the circumstances may be such as to hold the sailing-vessel liable for a failure to keep out of the way, especially if it has the wind free and can without difficulty do so. In situations where the tug, from its peculiar incumbrance, is unable to comply with the navigation rules, it should give sufficient notice to an approaching vessel of such inability; and until this is shown, an approaching vessel may rely upon it to comply with the rules. The duty imposed on a tug to exercise great care in the management of its tow is augmented by the fact that it is a cumbrous and difficult thing to handle. Its care is increased in proportion to the embarrassment it has to encounter; and where its tow is under any known impediment, it is the duty of the tug to avoid enhancing its dangerous condition, and it is under added obligations to shield it from further injury. It is the duty of a tug to protect its tow by every means within its power, and to put itself in such relation to it that it can handle it to the best advantage, and it is liable for assuming such a position in respect to it that it cannot observe the ordinary dangers incident to navigation."

Sec. 124. Liability of tow.- Where the tow is so situated that it acts independently of the tug, it is responsible for its own acts, so far as they are negligent, irrespective of the

1 The Mayumba, 21 Fed. R. 476; The B. B. Saunders, 25 Fed. R. 727. 2 The Marion W. Page, 36 Fed. R. 329; Eldridge v. The Rose Culkin, 52 Fed. R. 328; The Minnie C. Taylor, 52 Fed. R. 323.

The C. F. Ackerman, 9 Ben. 179. 4 The New York & Baltimore

Transp. Co. v. The Philadelphia &
Savannah Steam Navigation Co.,
22 How. 461; The Lucy D., 21 Fed.
R. 142.

5 The Pennsylvania, 9 Ben. 536.

Where a tug put itself between its tow and a vessel about to strike it, to ward off the blow, by which

negligence of the tug, or the misconduct of other members of the tow. It is the duty of a tow, when following its tug, to do so in strict conformity to its course, and in obedience to its orders; and where it is negligently permitted to sheer from the course of the other, by defective steering or otherwise, and collision ensues, it alone is responsible for the damages following from its neglect of duty.'

Where a tug is under the entire control of the tow, merely furnishing the motive power, while the guidance and direction is left to the tow, the latter is solely responsible; but where the tug acts under the direction of its own master or pilot, it is liable and the tow is not responsible, where there is no independent or concurrent negligence on its part. A tow is not absolved from the duty of taking all reasonable means to avoid collision that prudent and careful navigation requires, merely because it relies upon the tug for its motive power. It is its duty to follow the course of the other and to conform to its movements, and to perform all the duties which nautical skill demands, in order to secure such obedience to the tug, relying upon it not to lead it into danger; but where it appears that it cannot do so with safety, and the situation is such that collision is imminent, it becomes its duty to take such means as it can, or such as good seamanship would suggest, to escape injury to itself, or avoid

the vessel was injured, it was held that it was the duty of the tug to protect its tow by any means at hand, and that the tug was not liable to the injured vessel in endeavoring to prevent a more injurious collision with its tow. The George L. Garlick, 20 Fed. R. 647.

It was held not prudent navigation for a tug having a higher vessel lashed to its side, by which the vision of the tug's pilot was obscured, and where directions were given for the movement of the tug by a seaman standing on the upper

deck of the tow, unless the seaman was fully competent for that duty. The Drew, 25 Fed. R. 457.

The Sagua v. The Grace and The Rescue, 42 Fed. R. 461; The Frank Moffatt, 2 Flip. 291; Bissell v. The Alexander, 3 Fed. R. 671; The Herald, 8 Ben. 263; The Ciampa Emilia, 46 Fed. R. 866; 53 Fed. R. 155; The Invertrossocks, 59 Fed. R. 194; The Jacob Brandow, 39 Fed. R. 831.

2 The Edgar Baxter, 8 Ben. 162; The General Clinch, 21 How. 184; The Percy Birdsall, 55 Fed. R. 683. 3 The Charles Allen, 11 Fed. R. 317.

doing injury to another. conduct with its tug that the fault of the latter becomes the fault of the tow, it has no other or greater right and no higher standing in court, in case of injury received by it, than has the tug to which it is attached.2

Where a tow is so identified in

Sec. 125. Joint liability.- Where a tug and tow are under the joint management of one person having control over both, both are liable for damages arising from a joint act of negligence; and where the tow has such control over the tug that it may direct its movements at pleasure, it may become jointly liable for an error of navigation committed by the tug, which the two could have prevented by prompt interference, and may be liable for omitting to do so.3 Where the damages arise from the fault of both tug and tow, or where a third party is injured by the concurrent negligence of both, the injured party may proceed against the tug and tow, either jointly or severally, to recover the entire damage sustained; and where the individual liability of either is sought to be enforced by proceedings against it for the whole loss, the owner of the one required to respond for the entire loss may compel a contribution by the other.

The Gallileo, 28 Fed. R. 469. Where a tow at a critical point, when passing into a dangerous situation, carries such sail as to take it out of the control of the tug, either as to its headway or course, the tug is not liable for damages arising from the exclusive negligence of the tow.

Where a tow was being towed in a plainly negligent manner, it was held to be negligence for the tow to obey a signal by the tug directing it to go still further into a dangerous situation. The J. H. De Graf, 66 Fed. R. 351.

281; Sturgis v. Boyer, 24 How. 110; The Civilita, 103 U. S. 699; The Percy Birdsall v. The Invertrossocks and The James McCauley, 55 Fed. R. 683; The Einor v. The Ivanhoe, 45 Fed. R. 497, 500; The Maggie S. Hart, 38 Fed. R. 765.

4 The E. A. Packer, 49 Fed. R. 92; The Express, 46 Fed. R. 860; The John F. Winslow, 50 Fed. R. 478; The Franconia, 16 Fed. R. 149; The Virginia Ehrman v. Curtis, 97 U. S. 309; The Maley and Cooper, 14 Wall. 204: The A. Demerest, 25 Fed. R. 921; The Silica v. The Lord Worden, 27 Fed. R. 467; The Ex

2 McNally v. The L. P. Dayton press, 52 Fed. R. 890; Brady v. JefBk., 30 U. S. L. ed. 669.

3 The C. P. Raymond, 26 Fed. R.

ferson, 5 Del. 60.