Court Opinion

ID: 90235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:02:28+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:37.924789
License: Public Domain

102 U.S. 214 (____)
THE "BENEFACTOR."
Supreme Court of United States.

*217 Mr. Cornelius Van Santvoord for the appellants.
The court declined to hear counsel for the appellees.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the facts as found the judgment below was clearly right. The vessels were on the ocean, and there was nothing to interfere with their navigation. The weather was clear and fine, and the time about ten o'clock in the forenoon. The schooner saw the steamer when six or seven miles away, and from that time steadily kept her course until the collision was imminent. While there is no special finding that the steamer saw the schooner, it would have been a gross fault on her part if she did not; and both in the answer and in the requests for finding presented to the court below it is stated that the schooner was seen when three miles off. From that time until the collision the vessels were sailing on courses which crossed each other, so as to involve a risk of collision. Under these circumstances it was the imperative duty of the steamer to keep out of the way, and of the schooner not to embarrass the steamer by any change of course. The schooner, mindful of her duty, did hold her course, but the steamer did not avoid a collision.
The theory of the steamer seems to have been that, as the schooner was bound for New York, she should have steered more to the eastward than she did, and that the steamer had the right to assume she would do so, and act accordingly. This is clearly wrong. The steamer was bound to govern herself by what the schooner actually did, not by what might have been done. When more than six miles from the steamer, and from twenty to thirty minutes before the collision, the schooner was close-hauled, and on a course which she held steadily all the *218 time. At that distance from the steamer she had the right to choose her own way of getting to her port of destination, and the steamer could not require her to change it. As the responsibility of avoiding the collision was on the steamer, it was a fault in her to get so close that a slight change in the course of the schooner, in the midst of what seemed to be imminent peril, would bring the vessels together. It is clear to us that those on board the steamer were deceived as to the movements of the schooner by the leeway they themselves were making, and that they expected to pass to the windward, when they should have shaped their course to go to the leeward.
The only remaining questions are those which arise on the bill of exceptions. In The Abbotsford (98 U.S. 440), we decided that on an appeal in this class of cases we could only pass on such rulings of the court below as might properly be put into a bill of exceptions on the trial of an action at law, and that the findings of fact sent up with the record were conclusive here. If there are errors in these findings, they can only be corrected at the proper time and in the proper way by the court below. We are no longer required to weigh evidence. On an appeal, the findings have all the effect of the verdict of a jury in actions at law. This must be accepted as our final conclusion as to the effect of the act of 1875 (18 Stat. 315) in this particular.
The bill of exceptions in this case contains all the evidence, and a request made of the court by the appellant to find the facts in a certain way. From this request it appears that the only material controversy about the facts was as to whether the schooner negligently changed her course so as to cross the bows of the steamer and bring on the collision. The court, after considering the evidence, which was to some extent conflicting, found that she did not. This disposed of the case, and is conclusive on us. All the exceptions taken have their foundation in this finding, and relate to questions of law which would have arisen if that had been the other way. As we cannot disturb the finding, we cannot consider the exceptions. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed, and it is consequently
So ordered.