There are many palpable errors in the testimony in this case,' but the material facts, as found, are satisfactorily proven, and are sufficient, as I think, to charge the Nevada with fault. A large ocean steamer has no right to leave her moorings in a narrow slip crowded with other craft, by the use of her own propeller, without taking the utmost care to prevent accidents by the disturbance of the water which necessarily follows. The natural effect of the revolution of her propeller is to draw towards her stern all objects near by, movable in the water, and that, added to the displacement of the water, by the movement of the vessel herself, in such a slip, makes it the duty of the officers and men responsible for her navigation to be specially vigilant, and to keep the vessel completely under their control, until all danger is past. Other vessels have the right to come into the slip and moor themselves. She has an equal right to be there, and to start on her voyage when she is ready, but she cannot, with impunity, cause damage to other vessels lying near, by any neglect of her own navigation in going out. She must watch for, and, if necessary, give warning of danger.
Some witnesses have testified that the Kate Green was told, when she came in, that the Nevada was about to leave, and sent up into the slip to get out of the way, but, upon the whole evidence, it is manifest to my mind they were mistaken, and that they counfounded the Green with the Hart, which arrived a short time before, and which, undoubtedly, was warned. I do not entertain a doubt, that the Green got into the slip without being noticed from the Nevada, or by any one charged in any manner with her navigation. The entire attention of those on board the Nevada, officers as well as men, so far as I can discover, was directed towards her and to getting her away from her pier, and into the stream, without injury to herself. No notice whatever was taken of the other vessels in the slip, and no one was set to look out for danger on the other side of the vessel, or at the stern, when it ought to have been known that much damage might be done to the neighboring vessels by the screw, if from any cause they got loose from their moorings. This I cannot but consider, under the circumstances, a gross fault. With the large number of competent officers and men which the prudent and successful navigation of such a vessel required on board, there was no difficulty in providing men for the per-formane^-nf that duty, and, if they had .been at their pdsts, the Green would have been seen, as she. approached the slip, and stopped outside, or sent up into the slip with her tug, away from danger, to wait until the Nevada had gone. The fastenings of the Hart might, have been strengthened, to meet the additional straiB caused by the presence of the Green alongside, or, when the boats broke away, and the Green swung over, the propeller might have been stopped until she could have been got away. I know that, since the appeal, testimony has been taken to show that it would have been unsafe to stop the propeller after the steamer had started, because of the effect of the tide upon her bow when it got outside the end of the pier. If this was really so, of which I am by no means certain, it was a fault in the steamer to start without making provision to counteract the effect of the tide, in case it became necessary to stop. The rule hardly admits of an exception, which requires a steamer moving by her own power, in a crowded and narrow slip, to maintain complete control of herself. She is not likely to be put in a situation, dur-' ing her entire voyage, where other vessels will be exposed to so much danger from her movements as there, and, if she cannot get out by the use of her own propeller, without doing damage to other veséels that are lawfully moored near her, she must employ a tug.
An attempt has been made to prove that the steamer broke a hawser leading from her to her pier, as she went out, and that her stern swung away from the pier and out into the slip. The testimony on both these points is very conflicting, and it is not easy to say what the actual facts were; but, in the view I take of this case, they are unimportant. The real fault of the steamer was in not keeping a lookout astern, and over her side, into the slip. The office of a lookout is to watch for the approach of danger, and he should be stationed where he can best do what is required of him.- At sea, danger is most to be looked for ahead, and the lookout takes his place at the bow; but, in a crowded slip, there is as much, and oftentimes more, use for him at the stern, or over the side, than at the bow. Under such circumstances, it is as important to keep men stationed there, as at sea it would be forward. Thus much for the Nevada.
At first, I was inclined to think the Kate *21Green was also at fault, but, on further reflection, have reached a different conclusion. In The City of Paris [Case No. 2,767], a case like this in many of its features, I held a canal boat responsible equally with the steamer, and divided the damages, because the canal boat was insufficiently moored; but, there, the steamer was known to be about to sail long before she started, and the captain of the canal boat ought to have known that the boat alongside of which he was moored was not securely fastened. Besides this, he lay within twenty-five feet of the steamer, and a very little change of position would bring the vessels together. Here, however, the Kate Green had no actual notice that the steamer was about to leave, and I am by no means satisfied that she was securely made fast to the Hart before the propeller was set in motion. If there had been time enough, she might have seen, by the indications on the steamer or the pier, that the steamer was about to start, but, in passing into and along the slip, she was cut off from any view of what was going on. If she had had time, also, she might have seen that the Hart was not sufficiently fastened to hold the two boats; and it is possible, that, but for this, the rule acted upon in The City of Paris [supra], might, with propriety, be applied here. But, upon the case as it stands, I think the whole fault must be charged on the steamer. Had she kept her proper lookout, and given the necessary warning, all defects in the mooring of the canal boat could have been avoided.
[On appeal to the supreme court the decree of the circuit court was affirmed. 106 U. S. 154, 1 Sup. Ct 234.]The delay in filing the libel is sufficiently explained, and no change has taken place in the ownership of the Nevada since the loss. The suit, therefore, is not barred by lapse of time. While there may have been some difficulty in obtaining testimony, caused by the length of time which elapsed between the occurrence and the trial, the facts on which the case turns, if not admitted, are not seriously contested.
There is no complaint as to the amount of damages allowed by the commissioner, except in relation to the value of the canal boat, and in that I think the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the report.
A decree may be prepared in favor of the libellant Quick, for three thousand one hundred dollars, and interest at six per cent, from September 27th, 1871, and in favor of the libellant MeKnight, for five thousand eight hundred and sixty «t/ioo dollars, with like interest from the same date, and for costs.