## Facts

- The case arose from a collision between the schooners *Clara* and *Julia Newell* on February 25, 1874, inside the Delaware Breakwater.
- The *Julia Newell* was a small vessel of about seventy-eight tons burden.
- On the afternoon of February 23, 1874, the *Julia Newell* anchored within the breakwater for shelter from an approaching storm.
- The *Clara*, on a voyage from New York to Baltimore and anticipating the storm, also bore away into the breakwater for safety.
- The *Clara* arrived about 5:00 a.m. on February 25, 1874, and while proceeding to a proper anchorage collided with the *Julia Newell*, sinking her.
- At the time the *Clara* entered the breakwater, it was cold and very dark; the moon had gone down several hours before.
- There were many vessels already in the breakwater, and others were constantly arriving for shelter.
- The circuit court found the *Julia Newell* was “improperly lying without a watch on deck.”
- The storm increased and set in about the time the *Clara* came to anchor, becoming a very severe snowstorm.
- The circuit court further found that if the *Julia Newell* had maintained a sufficient watch on deck, the accident might have been prevented.
- The owners of the *Julia Newell* filed a libel in admiralty against the *Clara* in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of New York; the circuit court dismissed the libel.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court’s review was controlled by the Act of April 13, 1876, limiting review to questions of law on the record (and properly preserved rulings by bill of exceptions).

## Issues

1. Under the Act of April 13, 1876, could the Supreme Court look beyond the circuit court’s special findings of fact in an admiralty appeal to reexamine the evidence?
2. Accepting the circuit court’s findings as conclusive, was the dismissal of the libel correct as a matter of law where the *Clara* was found free from fault and the *Julia Newell* lay at anchor without a deck watch that might have prevented the collision?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the decree dismissing the libel against the *Clara*.
- The Court held it could not, “under any circumstances,” look beyond the findings of fact in the record; only the legal correctness of the circuit court’s conclusion was before it.
- On the record as found, the *Clara* had no fault attributed to her, while the *Julia Newell* was in fault for lying at anchor without a proper watch in dark, crowded, storm-threatening conditions.
- Because the libellants bore the burden to prove fault by the *Clara* and failed to do so, the loss fell on the *Julia Newell*.

## Legal Principles

- When a circuit court makes special findings under the Act of April 13, 1876, Supreme Court review in admiralty is confined to questions of law arising on the record (and preserved rulings by bill of exceptions); the Court cannot reweigh evidence or revise factual findings.
- In collision litigation, the party asserting fault bears the burden to establish it by satisfactory proof; absent proof or a finding of fault, the Court will not infer negligence (“Quod non apparet non est”).
- An anchored vessel in a crowded place of refuge on a very dark night, with severe weather approaching, must keep a sufficient deck watch; omission of that watch can be inexcusable negligence when it may prevent collision.
- In admiralty collision cases, when both vessels are in fault, damages are divided; when only one vessel is in fault and the other is not, the faultless vessel owes no compensation and the vessel in fault bears the consequences.

## Conclusion

Because the appeal presented only legal questions and the circuit court’s findings were binding, the Supreme Court treated the *Clara* as entirely without fault and the *Julia Newell* as gravely at fault for lying at anchor without a deck watch under dark, crowded, worsening-weather conditions; the Court therefore affirmed dismissal of the libel and left the loss on the *Julia Newell*’s owners.


*The Clara*, 102 U.S. 200 (1880)

The Clara, 102 U.S. 200 (1880)