The national Republican., 1867-02-21
The Courts.

SUPREME CoURT OF THE UNITED STATES
wEDSEsDAr, February 20 1877
On motion Of W. +. Sanders, Esq, @. W. Staple
ton, Esq, Of Montana Territory, was admitted an
attorney and counsellor Of this court.
No li0 Lessee Of Robert NJ. CrOxall, plaintiff
in error, vs.. John NJ Sherrard The argument OF
this cause was continued by Mr.. Bradley Of coun-
sci for defendant in error, and concluded by Mr.
Johnson, Of counsel for plaintiff in error.
No. AL Tho Illinois Central Railroad Company
VS.. Wm. Barron. Tho argument Of this was
commenced by Mr.. Tracy OF counsel for the plain
tiffs in error.
Adjourned until tomorrow at II o'clock.
AdmUahy- CoHiHOM-IHfereH ofthe Insured
Sn5rog attOn of Hlsmycr's Evidence-N Nathan Brod-
Ter, AppeikdRf, Is. Tie Corn Exchange, Inland
Navigation and Fire Insurance COmpany.-This
is cause Of collision commenced by the Corn Ex.
change Company against tho proceeds OF the sale Of
tho schooner Harriet Ross by libel fled in the Dis.
trict Court of the United States for the Northern
district Of Illinois The collision was with the
schooner Flora Watson, on Lake Ontario, In 1852.
The libel claimed that the Watson was navigating
with good lookout good light, &c,, and that when
she was few miles of the Niagara tight and
about twelve miles from Canada, she was run afoul
Of by the Harriet Ross, which struck her on the
starboard side, thereby sinking her.
| The answer ayerred that tho collision occurred
on the day preceding that alleged in the libel
denied all fault on tho part Of the Ross, and al.
legged that the collision occurred In consequence Of
want of proper light and lookout on the Watson,
aud from her neglect and carelessness 1t is also
alleged that when the vessels in such position
as to make collision imminent, tho Ross put her
helm hard down, and did her utmost to avoid the
| catastrophe.
The Iibeaut was the underwater of the hull and
| cargo of the Watson, and subsequently paid the
full amount Of loss sustained. Tho decree was for
tho libellant, and the respondent appealed to this
| court, contending that the Watson had the wind
free was going of large, and II was her duty to
avoid the Ross The rulo in such case is un.
doubted that "if two vessels are approaching each
other on cOnyerging courses one having the wind
two points free and the-Other close hauled, and a
collision occurs, the burden Is on the former to
| show that all possible and skill were used on
her part and that the collision the fault Of the
other vessel, was inevitable" Besides the
proof Is positive that If there had been q proper
lookout on the Watson he could have seen the
Ross, II not her light, half.mile of, and there.
fore she could have certainly avoided the latter and
prevented the cOlsioni and as she did not, she
must be liable for the collision.
There is only the report of u commissioner which
Is not evidence, that the libelant had any interest
in the property. 1t thus appears that he insured
certain sums upon the hull and cargo Of the Wat.
SOM but it nowhere appears that the parties in
sured had any interest in the property or that the
lbellant was made liable to pay for the loss by the
collision, or that there was any abandonment ol
payment of the loss before the filing Of the libel
With such defect Of proof the lbellant cannot re
cover Tho insurer having no interest, the party
subrogatod stands in the same position The libel
liant, therefore, simply appears as an insurer and
If he paid the amount Of insurance, it does not ap
pear that ho was liable to make the payment, OF
that the payment was other than q voluntary one
The appellee responds that there is no exception
to the commissioners report of the damages suf
fered by the libellant, and the point Of Insult
cheney Of proof should have been made at the time
II there is evidence not contained In tho record th'
defect Is the appellants.
Geo B. Hibbard for appellant, Richard Rae Op'
posed.
CIRcUIT CouRT-Chicf Justice Cartter.-
E. 7. Holton VS.. Conrad sohl Verdict for plain
tif for $I,O7I4I, with interest from the 2lst o
December, 1866.
! United States VS.. lIOllingshead. Judgment con
fessed.
Shoemaker VS.. Fenwick. Settled, and terms filed
$ Hayne vs., johnson and Behr. Judgment cor
5 fessed.
Hayes vs.. johnson and Dehr Nos 2I3, 2I4 an,
| 2l5. Judgment of condemnation for amount II
hands of Gariushshee.
Goldsmith vs. Wolfe Judgment confessed.
Arnold 4 Co. VS.. Wolfe Judgment confessed.
t Weldon VS.. BuCkman, Verdict for plaintiff 70
q. 5000 with interest from June Is, 1865
n Dawson vs. Rutherford. Verdict for plaintiff
T for $Sl2 So with interest from June !, 1865.
y Fricke VS.. Sylvester. Judgment confessed.
d Brooke, use of Duvall, VS., McDeytt. Judgmen
8 confessed and terms filed,
Brooke, use Of Duyall VS., Jno. Robinson. Dis
missed.
d Webster vs. Cunningham Court awards q writ Q
Q yetUrHo ha6cRdO.
, Oliver g. Abel VS.. II L, Skinner Verdict fc
the plRintii for $780, with interest from Jan.
o 1865
4 John lOwleS VS.. John Desil. Law. Motion I
t dissolve attachment.
i Simpson and Eaton vs.. Snow and Snow. Ve
dict for plaintiff for ST. 1898 &c. subject to the opir
. ion Of the court as to the law,
" Wm. Durr VS.. Jacob Tabler. Appeal. judi
a ment below affirmed with costs.
}. Thirteen foreigners, all residents Of Georgetown
v were naturaliEed yesterday.