Case Name: Jennings et al. Plaintiffs in Error, versus the Brig Perseverance, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1797-02
Citations: 3 Dall. 336
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jennings et al. Plaintiffs in Error, versus the Brig Perseverance, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 336–342

Head Matter:
Jennings et al. Plaintiffs in Error, versus the Brig Perseverance, et al.
THIS was a writ of error to remove the proceedings in an admiralty caufe from the Circuit Court for the dif-tncf of Rhode IJland. Soon after the decree was there' pronounced the Diftridf Judge died, and Judge Chase had left the diftridf ; fo that the record was lent up with all the evidence annexed, but no ftatement of .fatfts by the court.
Du Ponceau and Robbins, for the Defendant in error,
In—_ lifted, that .the Plaintiff could not go into a confideration of errors in facf; and,’that the rules eftabliihed in the cafes of [Vifcart v. D'Auchy (ant. p. 321.) Pintado v. Bernard, and the UnitedStatesv. La Vengeance,[ant. p.) wereconclufive. They, alfo, cited the following authorities: 1 Fern. 166. 214. 216. 3 Wils. 308. a Bl. Rep. 831. 1 ILt/d. ‘207. 56. 6r. Cro. E. 667. 6 Co. 7.
E. Tilghman, for the Plaintiff in error,
admitted, that, although the cafe of .a record tranimilted with the evidence, but without a ftatement of facf s, had never been exprefsly decided, yet, that it appeared to be embraced by the reafoning of the Chief Juftice, in fupport of the fecond rule in JVifcart v. D’Auchy; and if tfife court were, alfo, of that opinion, he would decline troubling them with any further argument.
Chase, Juftice. Even if the court were to permit it, you would £»d. little encouragement to enter into the merits : The evidence is too plainly againft you.'

Opinion:
.Paterson, Juflice
Though I was filent on the occa-fion, I concurred in' opinion with Judge Wilfon upon the fe-Cond rule laid down in Wifcart v. D'Auchy; and, of courfe, the court were divided, four to two, upon the decifion. I thought, indeed, that excluding a confideration of the evidence ( which, virtually, amounts to a ftatemenf of fails) Was-Shutting the door againit light and truth ; and was,leaving the property of the country too much to the difcretion and judgment of a'fingle Judge. But conceiving myfelf bound by the rule, and that, in fome ihape, the fails.mull be made to appear on the record, I have always fince thought it my duty to-make a ilatement, where the counfel would not, or could not, agree in forming one.
As to the prefent point, though there is no exprefs determination, it was the/ubjeil of difcuffion among the Judges ¿t their chamber; an opinion was formed, but not delivered, by the fame majority, that eftabliihed the fecond rule-in Wifcart .verfus D'Auehy; and the reafoñing of the Chief Juitice in fupport of that rule, went clearly to. this cafei I do not, there* fore, think, that any new argument cari be necefiary. However difpofed I might have been originally to give the moil liberal conftrudtion to the a<ft of Congrefs, the decifion of the Court precludes me from confidering the evidence, at this time, • as'a ilatement of fadts; and if there is no ilatement of fadls, the confequence feems naturally to follow, • that there can be no error. '