The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-23
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT


RUIR OF DAMAGES IN CASE OF MARINE ToRTs-
WHEN PERIL Ii CAUSED BIZ sALvoRs THEY
CANNOT RECOVER.
WASHINGTON, July 20, 1875
No. $50. the stsamtug Clara Clar1ta, her engine,
The New York Harbor Protection Company, appel
liant vs.. Augustus M. Cox, Lemuel II. Hopkins ct
nj. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the South.
ern district or New York. MT. Justice clifford de-
llVered the opinion OF the Court.
Marine torts a. well as maritime contracts are
cognizable in the admiralty, and where the re-
oress sought is for an injury caused By one ship
or vessel 90 another, the remedy OF the owner OF
the Injured snip or vessel may be either by
a proceeding IN rem or by suit
In persoDaDa, at the election OF the
owner, II tne offending ship or yes
se SCI, , IUunI DAMAGES are CLAIMED IN this
case by the owners OF the schooner Clara against
the steamtug Clara Ciarta for that the latter
neRliRenLly and Wrongfully caused the ferryboat
James Wait, which the steamtug had In tow, and
which was at the time on nre. to run into the
schooner white she was lawfully lying at anenor.
as alleged Ia the libei, whereby the schooner was
also set on Gre and sustained serious injuries and
damage, as they allege, 10 the amount OF $1,000.
Process was served ana the owners OF the steam
rug appeared and nled an answer. they admit
ana dne aic9s tnas the s.samsSS vent 10 her
assistance, and that those in charge OF the
the fre decided 70 remove her from her anchor
age, aud for that purpose they made fast haw-
Ser 70 ner and tOwed her out into the stream
with the intent 70 move her up the river TO the
HooOKen nats, where, they believed at the time,
she could be Deached In safety. throughout the
period Of that nanmuvre the allegation or the
answer is that tue IRE was below the decks; bat
IL is conceded that the names. after the BOAT was
moved from her slip, suddenly broke out through
the decks and tnat the hawser by which she was
being towed burned on and tRat the burning
boat noated adriit INTO the stream. Two other
attempts were made TO make fast % the burning
ferryboaL both OF which were Intellectual
TO accomplish the intended purpose, one
tie Rawser was burned OF, and the other for the
reason mat the fastening pulled out or gave
way and /: Is conceded In the snswer that the
ferryboat then went adrt arc dA A. she nUas,
tue schooner Of the Hbellants, which thereupon
caught fire before the ferryDoa could be dragged
away. Testimony was taken on both SIDES, ana
toe District Court entered oecretal ordeI tnal
the nbeIlanss do recover the damage which they
sustained by reSeOn OF the COLLISION, ana reier.
red the cause TO q Commissioner 10 compute the
amount. Due notice having been given OF the
time and place OF hearing the parties appeared
fuzzy heard, he reported that the damage sus-
tanned oy the schooner, Including demap,
were taken by the respondents TO ths
report OF the Comm ssoner tne nrnt OF which
was sustained BY the court which reduced tne
amount reported TO the sum OF t5,o67 o., as ap
pears by tAe final decree OF the District Court
Consequently the respondents appealed 20 tht
Circuit Court where new testimony was taken
and, The parties having been again heard, tnt
Circuit entered final decree sfnrmiDR the de
cree OF the District Court WheTeuDon the re
sp0ndeDt appealed 10 this Court. Two errors are
assigned In substance and eject, as foows;-
1. that the circuit Court erred In aflrmiDR tnI
decree Of the Distriet Court. That the scn0onel
was IN fault IN not keeping competent watcl
a. she laJ At anchor, and thAb the Circuit erred
u exaRA MA AIaA@t@S uaa Aiao W taVlA peSapal