James Peck, William Heilman, and Edwin Fresmuth, Owners of Thecolumbus, Appellants v. John Sanderson, Libellant

Decision Date01 December 1854
Docket NumberSTEAM-SHIP
Citation15 L.Ed. 205,17 How. 178,58 U.S. 178
PartiesJAMES B. PECK, WILLIAM HEILMAN, AND EDWIN H. FRESMUTH, OWNERS OF THECOLUMBUS, APPELLANTS, v. JOHN SANDERSON, LIBELLANT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

It was argued by Mr. Cutting, for the appellants, and submitted, on a printed brief, by Mr. J. Murray Rush, for the appellee.

The arguments of the counsel turned entirely upon questions of fact, as deduced from the evidence in the case. There were no principles of law disputed, and under these circumstances the reporter has deemed it unadvisable to condense the arguments.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case arises out of a collision between the schooner Mission, of Edenton, in North Carolina, and the steam-ship Columbus, of Philadelphia. The schooner sunk immediately and all on board perished, with the exception of Wilson G. Burgess, a seaman, who succeeded in getting on board of The Columbus. The libel is filed by the owner of the schooner, and charges that the collision was occasioned by the fault of the steam-ship. The circuit court sustained the libel, and directed the respondents to pay the full value of The Mission and her cargo. And from that decree this appeal has been taken.

The only witness examined by the libellant is the seaman above mentioned. It appears from his testimony that the schooner was bound from Rum Key to Edenton, with a cargo of salt and some specie. The crew consisted of the captain, one mate, two able and one ordinary seamen, a cook, and a son of the captain, about twelve years old. About 12 o'clock, on the night of the collision, Burgess, and a seaman named Brown, and the master, came from below, it being their watch on deck. The master soon went below again, and remained there till after the collision, leaving no one on deck but the two seamen. Brown took the wheel and Burgess went forward; and at two o'clock in the morning, Burgess took the wheel and Brown went forward. Burgess states that it was a pretty clear night, with a moderate wind from northwest, the schooner heading north by east. The sails were trimmed flat aft; and the schooner was as closehauled to the wind as she could be. He could see nothing on the larboard side, because the sails intercepted his view. She carried no lights.

He had been at the wheel about half an hour when the collision took place. He heard a heavy crash; the wheel turned, flew out of his hands, and knocked him down. He ran forward, and saw a large vessel into them. Her bowsprit was between the schooner's jib and foremast, and extended over their forecastle deck. He got hold of her bowsprit shroud and got upon her deck. The schooner went down, and the rest of the crew perished.

Burgess states that he neither saw nor heard the steamer until the vessels came together. The Columbus was on the larboard side, and the sails of the schooner prevented him from seeing her. He never saw or heard Brown after he went forward, and he gave the witness no notice of the approach of the steam-ship.

On the part of The Columbus several witnesses were examined, and among them the mate, a seaman stationed on the look-out, and the engineer. There is no material discrepancy in their testimony, and the result of it is this:——

The steam-ship was a propeller, and a regular packet between Philadelphia and Charleston. She was on her voyage from the former place to the latter, with freight and passengers on board.

On the night of the collision, it was the mate's watch, from twelve o'clock to four o'clock in the morning. He came from below at twelve o'clock, and saw that his men were keeping a look-out forward, and was also on the look-out himself. The wind was west-northwest, varying one or two points, and the steamer was heading southwest, and going at the rate of about eight and a half knots an hour. There was a heavy head sea, and the night was starlight, but not very clear, somewhat hazy. The ship carried a signal-light, (a globe lamp,) such as they usually carried, which was burning, and all the state-rooms were lighted. These lights could be seen from a distance, variously estimated by the witnesses from one to five miles. Her usual watch were on deck; two of them stationed on the forecastle deck on the look-out, and the mate was standing on the top of the skylight looking out for Cape Lookout light, the ship being then about ten miles from Cape Lookout breakers, and on soundings.

The Mission was first seen by one of the look-out, who immediately ran aft two or three steps, and sang out, 'vessel right ahead.' She was then at a distance of two or three hundred yards. And on such a night, a vessel like The Mission, with her sails hauled flat aft, and coming towards The Columbus edge on, and without lights, could not be seen at a greater distance.

The mate, as soon as the look-out cried 'sail right ahead,' jumped from the skylight, ordered the engineer to stop the engine, and ran forward. He saw The Mission a point or a point and a half on the larboard bow, apparently standing west by north, distant, as he conjectured, about two hundred yards. He could not see her very plain, her sails...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • The Golden Grove
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • January 1, 1882
    ... ... collision civil and maritime, in which the owners ... of the brig Kremlin, (the vessel sunk by the ... of the said vessel, are complainants, and John S ... Smailes, the master of the British ... testimony. William Wintle, able seaman at the wheel on the ... St. 818; Holt, Rule Road, art. 16, p. 12; Peck ... v. Sanderson, 17 How. 178; Steamer ... 634; The Boughvainville v. James C ... Stevenson, 2 Asp. 2; Law Cases, 1; The ... ...
  • The Martello
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 24, 1888
    ... ... by the respective owners to recover their damages, each ... alleging that ... In the case of The Zadok, supra, Sir JAMES ... HANNEN, the president of the admiralty ... 77.] ... steamer, the supreme court in Peck v. Sanderson, 17 ... How. 178, 182, say: ... ...
  • The Patria
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 18, 1899
    ...clear, the authorities are abundant, new and old, to the effect that it is the duty of the privileged vessel to give way. In Peck v. Sanderson, 17 How. 178, 182, is said: 'But where, as in the present case, the (steamer and sail vessel) are brought suddenly and unexpectedly close to each ot......
  • The Lepanto
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 23, 1884
    ...534; The Kirby Hall, 8 Prob.Div. 71; if uncertain, she must slacken, or stop and reverse. The George D. Fisher, 21 How. 1, 6; Peck v. Sanderson, 17 How. 178, 181. her conduct in this respect, a vessel must, prima facie, be held to answer according to the event. It is always safe to stop and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT