The Commerce
Syllabus
The Commerce. 1. A steamer condemned for not changing her course when meeting a sailing vessel. 2. When the District and Circuit Courts in such a decreo ag 'ee in their estimate of the value of the sailing vessel, this court will not set aside their estimate without satisfactory evidence that they wore mistaken. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. The steamer Commerce was proceeding down the Chesapeake Bay, in a southeast course, on an evening of January, 1870; the schooner Seamen trying to sail up in a course about north-northwest.. The night was perfectly calm, and the moon was shining. When nearly opposite Annapolis, the vessels first saw each other, at a distance of about two miles, and not a greatwhile afterwards collided; the steamer cutting the {schooner in two, and sending her with her cargo forthwith to the bottom in the deepest part of the bay. Her owners hereupon libelled the .steamer in the District Court at Baltimore. The master of the steamer answered, stating that she was proceeding down the bay at a rate of six or seven miles an hour, holding, a course south by west; that he discovered a sailing vessel approaching from the opposite direction, holding a course, as near as he could judge, north by east; that a light wind was prevailing from the southeast, of about two knots an hour; that when the schooner was about a mile distant, he altered the course of the steamer to south by east; that he continued this last-mentioned course, and the
Full Opinion (2,178 characters)
Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of thé court. If the schooner was guilty of any fault which caused the collision, or contributed to it in any degree, it was in a change of her course, which the respondents allege she made when the vessels were about four hundred yards from •each other. No other fault was averred in the answer to the libel, and no other has been suggested in the argument here. But the evidence utterly fails to establish the allegation of any change of the course of the schooner after the steamer hove in sight, or after she was seen from the steamer. Not only is there the direct evidence to the contrary of the master and pilot of the schooner, as well as of a disinterested witness who saw the collision from a yacht two or three hundred yards westward from the place where it happened, but it is made abundantly manifest that a change of course was then impossible.' There was a dead calm, with not a ripple upon the water, aud the sails of the schooner were amidships, swinging inboard. She was drifting with an ebb Tide, and could be kept straight only by an oar. Such is’the overwhelming testimony. And nothing appears on the other side éxcept the statement of the master of the steamer, who has testified that “ the wind was about southeast, and, as near as he could judge, about a two-knot breeze.” As the steamer was on a southeast course, and making six ‘or. seven knots, this testimony is very light evidence in the scale against the proofs that the schooner was becalmed, and consequently that the averment of a change of her course is without foundation., The case exhibits nothing, then, to justify the steamer’s failure to keep out of the way, and she was properly condemned. It is said, however, she has been mulcted in excessive damages. The District Court and the Circuit Court concurred in the assessment made, and we do not perceive that more was allowed to the libellants than, the evidence warranted. When both the lower courts have agreed in their estimate of the damages, we ought not to set-aside their conclusions without satisfactory evidence that they were .mistaken. We have no such evidence before us- Decree affirmed.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.