'l'BJI nOYAL AnCH. ,.:
or capable being' seen by those on board of the Nellie Floyd, and the latter were, both prior to that time and during all that time, exercising proper vigilance, watchfulness. and attention in looking for some light upon the Royal Arch down to the time of the collision. (6) The red light of the NeIlie Floyd was seen from the Royal Arch threequarters of a mile off, about three points off her starboard bow. Nothing was done on board the Royal Arch to avoid a collision until it was too late, although the courses of the vessels were such, if continued, as to render a collision inevitable. After the red light of the Nellie Floyd was discovered from the Royal Arch, there was time enough before the collision for the Royal Arch to change her course, and' avoid a collision, by putting her helm hard down, provided the Nellie Floyd should keep her course. The Royal Arch kept her oourse until just before the collision, when she attempted to alter it so as to avoid a collision, but there was then not sufficient time for her to lllake a successful change.
And on the foregoing facts the circuit court found the following conclusions of law:
(1) The Royal Arch was improperly navigated, in that she did not have her regulation side lights, and especially her green light, properly and brightly burning, and for that reason she was the sale culpable cause of the collision. It washer duty to keep her course, as she did, on seeing the red light of the Nellie Floyd. It was the duty of the Nellie Floyd to avoid the Royal Arch, ,but she was relieved from such duty by the failure of the Royal Arch to exhibit any light which those on the Nellie Floyd could see befOre the and their ignorance of the course of the Royal Arch, until it was for the Nellie Floyd to do anything to avoid the collision, was excusable, and was produced by such fault of the Royal Arch. (2) The Nellie Floyd was, in every respect. properly and carefully navigated. and in nowise caused, or tended to cause, the collision. (3) 'fhe decree of the district court must be reversed, and a decree be entered for libelants, for their damages, with interest, and their costs in the district court and in this court; such damages to be ascertained br a reference in this court.
Owen c/; Gray, for the Nellie Floyd. Goodrich, Deady c/; Platt, for the Royal Arch. Accompanying the foregoing findings was the following opinion: BLATCHFORD, Justice. The district judge, in his opinion,! states that after a careful examination of the testimony, and with 'some hesitation, he has arrived at the conclusion that the coHi/lion was attributable "to the omission to keep a careful lookout on the and not a failure on the part of the Royal Arch to exhibit the lights required by law." The testimony was, none of it, taken in court before the judge, but all of it by deposition out of court. In this court there has been added to the proof for the libelants the deposition of the master of a vessel which was sailing on the same course with the Nellie Floyd at the time, and just behind her; and who, though using
The opinion of the district court was as follows, (filed March 1,1884:) J. After a careful examination of the testimony, and with Bome hesitation, I have arrived at the conclusion that the collision' in question must be attributed to the omission to keep a careful lookout on the Nellie. Floyd, and not to a failure on the part of the Royal Arch to. exhibit the lights required by law. The libel agninst the Royal Arch must therefore be dismissed, and the libel aga,inst the Nellie Floyd sustained. The prevailing party must recover his costs.
his opera-glass, saw no light on the 'Royal Arch, when the latter was approaching in such a position that her green light ought to have been seen by him, as well as from the Nellie Floyd, if it had been a proper light. On the whole evidence, I must pronounce for the Nellie Floyd.
THE CITY OF COLUMBUS. BOSTON & SAVANNAH STEAM-SHIP Co. v. BROWN and others. FAUCETT, Adm'x, v. BOSTON & SAVANNAH STEAM-SHIP Co. BROWN v. SAME.
(Dist'l'z'ct 001,('I't, D. Massachusett8.
In Admiralty. These cases were heard together, as involving the same questions of law, arising out of the stranding and sinking of the steam-ship City of Columbus off Gay Head,Martha's Vineyard, January 18,1884. After the loss of the steam-Ship, the Boston & Savannah Steam-ship Company, as owner thereof, filed in this court, February 18, 1884, a libel to limit its liability under Rev. St. § 4283, claiming limit. ation for all losses to the value of its interest in the vessel and pending freight after the loss. Upon this libel, appraisal of the value of such interest in vessel and freight was ordered and had, and there. upon the company gave proper stipulation to pay the amount into court whenever ordered, as provided by admiralty rule 54. The court then issued a monition to "all persons claiming damages for any loss of life or property, or destruction, damages, or injury, by reason of, or caused by, or arising out of, said striking on the rocks, stranding,
.. " " -