THE "S. C. TRYON."
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.
The Supreme Court held that a bill of exceptions is not required to give the Court jurisdiction over an admiralty appeal under the 1875 Act, as statutory findings of fact become part of the record automatically and may be reviewed for legal errors without exceptions. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that the schooner S. C. Tryon caused a collision through an unjustifiable change of course that prevented the steamer from passing safely, and therefore the steamer bore no liability.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
.Mb. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court..
A bill of exceptions is not necessary to give this court jurisdiction of an appeal in admiralty under the provisions of the act of Feb. 16, 1875, c. 77 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 315). That act expressly provides' that the review here shall extend to the determination of the questions of law arising upon the record, and to such rulings of the court, excepted to at the time, as may be presented by a bill of éxeeptions, prepared as in actions at law. At law á bill of exceptions is only used to put into the record that which would not appear without. . The findings which the statute requires must be stated by the court. These, therefore, become part of the record without any action of. the parties,, and errors of law arising on them need not be presented by exceptions. They are in the nature of a special verdict, as to which the inquiry is always open' in the reviewing court, whether, when taken in connection with everything else that appears, it is sufficient to support the.judgment.
The .motion to dismiss must, therefore, be overruled, but on looking into the; record we are satisfied the appeal was taken for delay. The only question presented arises on the findings of fact. From these it appears that the collision was due solely to an unjustifiable change of course by the schooner when the'vessels were in close" proximity, which baffled the steamer in her efforts to pass in safety. . It is so well settled that a steamer is not-liable for the consequences of a collision occurring in this way, that we do not deem it proper to retain the cause for further consideration.
Motion to affirm granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Gazelle & Cargo, 128 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1888)
-
Exch. Nat'l Bank of Pittsburgh v. Third Nat'l Bank of N.Y., 112 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1884)
-
The Alaska, 130 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1889)…q. and cases cited. But there is sufficient color for. the .motion to dismiss, to warrant us it£ entertaining the motion to affirm. Whitney v. Cook, 99 U. S. 607; Hinckley v. Morton, 103 U. S. 764; Micas v. Williams, 104 U. S. 556; The S. C. Tryon, 105 U. S. 267; Independent School Dist. v. Hall, 106 U. S. 428 ; Davies v. Corbin, 113 U. S. 687. On the merits, we are of opinion that this case is governed [*209] by the decision in the case of The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, and that this appeal was taken for…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence