to leave the wheel, and thus to indicate to the steamer that she was changing her course, which would be the fault of the schooner. A decree may therefore be entered finding the schooner at fault, dismissi;ug the libel, and sustaining the cross libel.
THE RABBONI. THE NELLIE E. RUMBALL. OOFFIN
STEWART (two cases).
STEWART v. COFFIN (two cases). (Cjrcult Court of Appeals, First Circuit. April 29, 1897.) Nos. 113 and 116.
Where sailing vessels approach each other nearly head on, and one of them has a defective green light of obsolete make, so that, in spite of careful observations, the other sees only her red light, the latter caDnot be held in faUlt for acting upon this indication, and the collision w11l be attributed to the. deceptive ligbts.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine:' , This was a suit in admiralty by Thomas J. Stewart and others, owners, of the schooner Rabboni, against O. P. Rumball and others, owners of the barkentine Nellie E. RumbaIl, to recover damages for a .collision. Across libel was also filed by the respondents. The district' court found that the Rumball was alone in fault, and accordingly. 53 Fed. 948., On appeal to the circuit it was held that both vessels were in fault, and a decree for divided was accordingly entered. ld. 952. Edward S. Dodge,for owners of the Nellie E. Rumball. Eugene P. Carver (Edward E. Blodgett with him on the brief), for owners of the Rabboni ' Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and ALDRICH, District Judges. PER CURIAM. A substantial part of the testimony presented here on the part of the Rumball was not before the district court when the case was decided there, and the testimony of Axel Julius Coster, mate of the Rumball, was not before the circuit court at the time of the original decision therein; and here, upon a full and careful consideration of all the evidence and the arguments now presented, a conclusion is reached different from that in either the district or circuit court. The conclusion is that the trouble arose from the defective green light of the schooner Rabboni. It is believed that the Rabboni was appl'oaching the Rumball head on, and the
testirllo:l1y shows unquestionably that the Rumball at the time was maintaining a vigilant lookout,and was carefully observing the approachof the light of the vessel which it had sighted. It is clear that the only light sighted was the red light, which was brightly bl1l'ning, and plain to be seen. The red being the only light shown, the H.umbaIl had the right to conclude. that the approaching vessel (the Rabboni) was crossing her course, and, acting upon this indication, the Rumball changed her course sufficiently to avoid the schooner H.abboni had she been crossing the course of the Rumball, according to the indications of the red light. The green lantern of the H.abboni was of obsolete make, being plain-faced, not ribbed, and, quite likely, poorly trimmed. At all events, from the defects in the lantern, or from some other it was not visible to the careful observations of the Rumball until too late to avoid collision. It is probabli7-in fact, it is quite certain-that the change in the course of the Rumball was somewhat in, accordance with the theory of the Rabboni, and that such change of course brought on the col· lision.. '.,l.'his proposition would seem, on its face, to ,hi-big the Rumball, into fault; but we must' look for the cause. It, is bard to beli'eve--indeed,· it is almost jncl'edible-that the RumbaIl, in the face of two lights,or of a green light,chauged her course so as to necessarily bring herself into collision with the approaching vessel. An explanation of this, is. found, as is believed, in the fact that the Rumball misapprehended the course of the approach of the Rabboni. She properly acted upon what she saw. Her calculations and maneuvers were warrantabl;r based upon '. the indications presented by the Rabbo:Qi. That she )Vas misled" and that she millcalculated and maneuvered so as to bring 'herself into contact with 'the Rabboni; was not her was fault of the vessel approaching wi,th faulty and deceptire lights. T1J.e decrees, of the circuit court are reversed, and the cases are remanded; withdirectibI1s to dismiss the lioel of the 'owhers of with costs, and in the libel of the owners of the Nellie E. Rumball to enter a decree far the libelants fot the dl:llllage sustained by the barkentine in": the coUisian, wlth interest. and costs. Costs.in this court are adjudged to the owners of the Nellie E. RumbaU.
8REENE COUNTY V. KORTRECHT.
GREENE OOUNTY v. KORTREOHT. (01rcult Court of Appeals, Fifth Oircuit. May 25, 1897.)
UNITED STATES COURTS-JURiSDICTION-AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.
In an action on negotiable bonds which have matured, together with the coupons, neither the interest on the bonds after maturity, nor the interest on the coupons after their maturity, constitutes a part of the matter in dispute, in determining the jurisdiction .of the circuit court, where the controversy arises between citizens of different states.
In Error to the Circuit' Court of the United States for the Northern District of Allibama: ' A., G. Smith, James Weatherly, H. C. Tompkins, and Ed. de Graffenreid, for plaintiff ineliror. E. II. allq 8. D. Weakley, for defendant in error. Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and NEWMAN,Distr,ict Judge. McCORMICK, Circuit Judge. This is an action of debt on nego· tiable bonds' and the coupons thereto attached. The declaration counts separately on two bonds, each for the sum of $500, which matured January 1, 1890. It also counts separately on 17 coupons attached, to each bond, each for the sum of $20, making 34 coupons in all declared upon, of the aggregate face value of $680. The recoverysought is for this principal debt and interest on the bonds from their maturity, and on each of the 34 coupons from the date of their respective maturity. , The circuit courts of the United States haV'ejurisdiction concurrent ,with the courts of ijle several in all suite; of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, in which there shall be a controversybetween citizePlil of different states, in which the matter in dispute exchisive of interest and costs, the sum or value of , Ooupons ollnegotiable bonds interest on the bond accruing and made payable at stated "times the maturity of the bolld::Ea,ch couJ?On is an independent contract stipulating for the of the inlilta,llIrient of }nterest at the time nan;ted in each, respettively; and, after its· maturity, bears interest, will suppert an action, and is subject to the statute of limitations, as a separable contract. The interest on the bonds accruing after maturity, and the interest on each,"4J:Qupon accf\1ingafter its an accessor.y relation to the principal. of the'Dond and of ea.ch coupon, respectively, and by the terms df the statute is excluded from the calculation of the amount declared on, detepmining the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Edwards v. Bates Co., 163 U. S. 269, 16 Sup. Ct. .!)67; Bro."\Vn y. Web,ster,,156 U. S. 328, 15Sup.. Ot. 377; Nesbit v. Riverside,Independent Dist., 144 U. S. 610, Sup. Ct. 746; Amy v. Dubuque j 98 U. 8.470; Aurora' v.West,7 Wall. 82. From the foregOing"statemel1t .of,tlJecase, and the rule as deduced froni the authorities cited, it is plain that the circuitc6url did not ha'veiuris.