THE "BENEFACTOR."
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a maritime collision case, the Supreme Court affirmed judgment against a steamship that failed to avoid collision with a schooner despite having the duty to keep out of the way when their courses crossed. The Court held that the steamer was bound to govern itself by the schooner's actual course rather than by assumptions about what course the schooner should have taken, and that the schooner properly maintained its steady heading as required by maritime law. The decision also established that on appeal from admiralty cases, findings of fact are conclusive and equivalent to jury verdicts, and appellate courts cannot disturb them or consider exceptions based on them.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the facts as found the judgment below was clearly right. The vessels were on the ocean, and there was nothing to interfere with their navigation. 'The weather was clear and fine, and the time about ten o’clock in the forenoon. The schooner saw the steamer when six or seven miles away, and from that time steadily kept her course until the collision was imminent. While there is no special finding that the steamer saw the schooner, ¿t would have been a gross fault on her part if she did not; and both in the answer and in the requests for finding presented to the court below it is stated that the schooner was seen when three miles off. From that time until •the collision the vessels were sailing on courses which crossed each other, so as to involve a risk of collision. Under these circumstances it was the imperative duty of the steamer to keep out of the way, and of the schooner not to embarrass the steamer by any change of course. The schooner, mindful of her duty, did hold her course, but the steamer did not avoid a collision.
• The theory of the steamer seems to have been that, as the schooner was bound for New York, she should have steered more to the eastward than she did, and that the steamer had the right to assume she would do so, and act accordingly. This is clearly wrong. The steamer was bound to govern herself by what the schooner actually did, not by what might have been done. When more than six miles from the steamer, and from twenty to thirty minutes before the collision, the schooner was close-hauled, and on a course which she held steadily all the time. At that distance from the steamer she had the. right to choose her o.wn way of getting to her.port of destination, and the steamer could not require her to change it. As the responsibility of avoiding the collision was on the steamer, it was a fault in her to get so close that a slight change in the course of the schooner, in the midst of what seemed to be imminent peril, would bring the vessels together. It is clear to us that those on board the steamer were deceived as to the movements of the' schooner by the leeway they themselves xwere making, and that they expected to-pass to the windward, when they should have shaped their course to go to the leeward. • -
The only remaining questions are those which arise on the bill of exceptions. In The Abbotsford (98 U. S. 440), we decided that on an appeal in this class of cases we could only pass on such rulings of the court below as might properly be put into a bill of exceptions on the trial of an action at law, and that the findings of fact sent up with the record were-conclusive here. If there are errors in these findings, they can only be corrected at the proper time and in the proper way by the court below. We are no'longer required to weigh evidence. On an appeal, the findings have all the effect of the verdict of a jury in actions at law. ' This must be accepted as our final conclusion as to the effect of the act of 1875 (18 Stat. 815) in this particular. The bill of exceptions in this case contains all the evidence, and a request made of the court by the appellant to find the facts in a certain way. From this request it appears that the only, material controversy about the facts was as to whether the schooner negligently changed her course so as to cross the b.ows of the steamer and bring on the collision. The court, after considering the evidence, which w;as to some extent conflicting, found that she did not. This disposed of the case, and is conclusive on^ us. < All the exceptions taken have their foundation in .this finding, and relate to questions of' .law which would have arisen if that had been the other way. As we cannot disturb the finding, we cannot consider the exceptions.. .It follows that the judgment must be affirmed, and it is Consequently
¡Só ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City of N.Y., 147 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1893)…are such ns might be -presented by a bill of' exceptions prepared as in actions at Naw; and that the findings have practically the same effect as the special verdict of a jury. The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440; The Clara, 102 U. S. 200; The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214; The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 185;. Collins v. Riley, 104 U. S. 322; Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ins. Co., 107 U. S. 485; Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 353; The Maggie J. Smith, 123 U. S. 349; The Gazelle, 128 U. S. 474: ' 2. That it is only the ult…
-
THE City OF Norwich. Place & Others v. Norwich & NEW York Transp. Co., 118 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1886)…pard v. Gosnold, Vaughan 159, 172; approved by Ch. Baron Parker in Mitchell v. Torup, Parker 227, 236.” But the argument is at-war with the spirit as well as the text of our decisions on the subject of limited liability. The case of The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214; S. C. 103 U. S. 239, is precisely in point. That was a case of libel in rem against the vessel in fault, and the proceeding for a limited liability was sustained. It is true that this particular point was not raised; but the parties in the case wer…
-
The Gazelle & Cargo, 128 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1888)…may be presented by a bill of exceptions prepared as in actions at law.” 18 Stat. 315. The limit thus prescribed has been steadfastly upheld by this court against repeated attempts to escape from it. ‘ The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440 ; The Benefactor, 102 U. S. 214; The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 185 ; The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381; Sun Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ins. Co., 107 U. S. 485; The Adriatic, 107 U. S. 512; The Connemara, 108 U. S. 352; Merchants’ Ins Co. v. Allen, 121 U. S. 67. [*485] The record in this c…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The "Abbotsford.", 98 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1878)