Newell v. Norton and Ship

70 U.S. 257, 18 L. Ed. 271, 3 Wall. 257, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 708

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: April 18, 1866
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The libel in this suit was originally, against the steamboat Hill, and against the master, who was part owner, and, also, against the pilot. It was amended in the District Court by dismissing it as to the pilot, and sustained as against the vessel and the master, or owner. The allowance of this amendment was within the discretion of the court, and was very proper. The objection that a libel in rem against a vessel, and in personam against the owner, cannot be joined, was properly overruled; as it was.in- conformity with the 15th rule in admiralty as established by this court.

It has been objected here, that the allowance of the amendment was injurious to the sureties in the bond given for the property. But this objection is without foundation, as their liability was neither increased nor diminished. “ Every person bailing such property is considered as holding it subject to all legal dispositions of . the court.” *

It has been contended, also, that tbe right of the libellant to sustain this action ceased by his abandonment to the underwriters. The Circuit Court very properly ruled, that as the libellant was the owner and master of the steamer World he was the bailee of the cargo, and so responsible to the shippers or insurers for the safe transportation and delivery thereof, and to fulfil his obligations and secure his reward, he was entitled to posséssion, and might maintain an action for its destruction. * “ The respondent is not presumed to know or bound to inquire as to the relative equi-. ties of parties claiming the damages. He is bound to make satisfaction for the injury he has done. When he has once made it to the injured parties, he cannot be made liable to another suit at the instance of any merely equitable claimant.” †

The question of merits was the next question argued.

During the five years in which this case was pending in the District and Circuit Courts, more than a hundred depositions have been taken. In these there is the usual conflict of testimony which always attends such cases. The issue is one entirely of fact, and depending on .the credibility of witnesses. The District and Circuit Courts, after patient investigation of the testimony, concur in the opinion that the libellant has fully established his case. The record contains the opinion delivered by the learned judge of the Circuit Court, which fully vindicates the correctness of his decree;

It would be a very tedious as well as a very unprofitable task to again examine and compare the conflicting statements of the witnesses in this volume of depositions. And, even if we could make our opinion intelligible, the case could never be a precedent for any other case, or worth the trouble of understanding.

It is enough to say that we find ample testimony to support the decision, if believed; and that we again repeat, what we have often before decided, that in such cases, par ties should not appeal to this court with any expectation that we will reverse the decision of the courts below, because counsel can find in the mass of conflicting testimony enough to support the allegations of the appellant, if the testimony of the appellee be entirely disregarded; or by attacking the character of his witnesses when the truth of their testimony has been sustained by the opinions of both the courts below. Parties ought not to expect this court to revise their decrees merely on a doubt raised in our minds as to the correctness of their judgment, on the credibility of witnesses, or the weight of conflicting testimony. In the presenil case we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Circuit Court, which- is accordingly

Affirmed with costs.

* See The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 582.

† See Monticello v. Mattison, 17 Howard, 152.