Court Opinion

ID: 6606843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:14:18.257339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:13.126574
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice GRIER
delivered the opinion of the court:
From the manner in which this decree was drawn, it might *272be inferred that the court had refused to allow anything for demurrage. But on reference to the record, it appears that this sum was allowed by the judge, because he thought that “the result would be about just between the parties on the whole case.” The sum reported by the commissioner has not the effect of a verdict. The court may not concur in his conclusions upon the facts reported, and may modify or wholly reject it. The court did not decide that demurrage was not a proper item to be allowed in the computation of damages, but that the amount of his decree was a just allowance for all damages sustained by libellant. On reviewing the evidence, we are satisfied that the sum allowed in the decree was “just between the parties.” The report of the commissioner, allowing the whole bill for repairs, was not just, because the repairs necessarily made were chargeable not wholly to the collision, but to the age and previous condition of the boat. The charge for demurrage allowed by him was not justified by the evidence, although there was testimony to support it, such as can always be obtained when friendly experts are called to give opinions. Besides, the libellant withheld the best evidence of the profits made by his boat, which would be found in his own books, showing his receipts and expenditures before the collision.
"We believe the decree gave the libellant ample reparation for all damages, as well for demurrage as repairs.
Decree affirmed.