Case: The "Richmond."
Abbreviation: The "Richmond."
Decision Date: 1880-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 103 U.S. 540
Volume: 103
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The “Richmond.”
Judges: 
Pages: 540–544

Head Matter:
The “Richmond.”
1. Where in a case in admiralty the decree below, determining the liability of the respective vessels in a collision, was rendered-before the act of Feb. 16, 1875, c. 77 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 315), took effect, this court, the case being properly here on appeal, will re-examine the evidence, and, if the appellant • does not show that in the concurring action of the courts below error.was . committed-to his prejudice, the decree-will be affirmed.
-2. Where, after such a decree, and the taking effect of that act, the ascertainment of the amount of damages • sustained by the vessel not in fault was referred to a master, the action of the Circuit Court upon exceptions . to his report, all of which relate to questions of fact, will not be reviewed here.
Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of the United States for tbe District of Louisiana.
■This was a libel filed by Shirley. and others, owners of the steamboat “ Sabine.” They allege, in substance, that between two and three o’clock of the morning of Feb. 11, 1872, while she was descending the Mississippi River about twelve miles above New • Orleans, the steamer “ Richmond ” ran into and sunk her; that the collision was owing entirely to the gross and culpable negligence of the officers and pilot of the “ Richmond;” and that the libellants suffered damages , to the sum of 137,500. -
The owners of the “ Richmond ” filed an answer and cross-libel, claiming $12,000 damages.
The Merchants’ Mutual Insurance Company filed its libel against the “ Richmond ” and the “ Sabine,” alleging that it had insured the cargo of the “ Sabine,” and. paid a large sum on the policy, and that both vessels were at fault.
Other intervenors appeared and filed their respective libels.
The suits were consolidated. The District Court dismissed the libel April 14, 1873. An appeal was prayed for and allowed to the Circuit Court, which adjudged and decreed,April 19, 1875, that the libel of the “Sabine” be dismissed with costs; that the “ Richmond ” recover of the “ Sabine ” all damages the “ Richmond ” suffered by the collision; that the libel of the Merchants’ Mutual Insurance Company against the “Sabine” and the “ Richmond” be dismissed as to the “ Richmond ; ” and that said company and intervenors have judgment against N. C. Selby, mastei of the steamer “Sabine,” for all damages sustained by the company by reason of said collision, with privilege on any balance of the proceeds in the registry arising from the sale of the “ Sabine.”
It was further ordered that it be referred to J. W. Gurley, .United States commissioner, to ascertain and report the damage sustained by the “Richmond,” the Merchants’ Mutual Insurance Company, and the intervenors. He reported, June 4, 1875, that the “ Richmond ” had sustained damages in the sum of $7,392,60. He subsequently filed a report of the losses of the Merchants’ Mutual Insurance' Company and of the various insurance companies, subrogees of the individual intervenors.
The court, March 11, 1876, confirmed the report and condemned the sureties on the bond of the “ Sabine ”• to pay the amount for which they respectively bound themselves. The owners of the “ Sabine ” and the various insurance companies prayed an appeal from the decrees of the Circuit Court.
The insurance companies who claime’d to be subrogated to the rights of the individual intervenors filed no new pleadings.
Mr. BentincJc Egan, Mr. B. AT. Marr, and Mr. Charles B. Singleton for the appellants.
Mr. Gfiven Campbell, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree in admiralty which wás entered before the act of Feb.16,1875, c. 77, went into effect; consequently the whole case comes up. On examination we-find that, so far as the merits are concerned, the questions involved are of fact only. Two courts have already found against the appellants. Under such circumstances the burden is on the appellants to show the error, with every presumption in favor of the decrees below. The S. B. Wheeler, 20 Wall. 385. The testimony is voluminous and conflicting, but it certainly makes no' such clear case in favor of the appellants as will justify us in reversing the decrees against them.
The decree of the Circuit Court will be consequently affirmed, and as it will serve no useful purpose to enter into a discussion of the evidence in detail, no further opinion will be delivered. Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider how much of the case has been brought here by the appeals that were taken.'
Decree affirmed.