Belden v. Chase

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER: This was an action at law brought by William Donahue, owner of the steamboat Charlotte Vanderbilt, in the supreme court of the state of New York, against William Belden, owner of the yacht Yosemite, for so negligently navigating the yacht as to run down and sink the steamboat in the Hudson river a little north of Esopus Meadow lighthouse, and some 90 miles north of New York city, at or about half past 9 on the evening of July 14, 1882. Donahue died leaving a will, which was admitted to probate, and letters testamentary duly issued thereon to Emory A. Chase and William J. Hughes, who qualified as executors, and the action was thereupon revived and continued in their names. There have been three trials. Upon the first a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and judgment entered thereon, which, on appeal to the general term of the supreme court, was reversed, and a new trial granted. Chase v. Belden, 34 Hun, 571. The case having been again tried, the trial court, proceeding in accordance with the rulings of the general term, nonsuited the plaintiffs. This judgment was affirmed by the general term, and upon appeal to the court of appeals the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded. Chase v. Belden, 104 N. Y. 86, 9 N. E. 852. The case was then tried a third time, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and judgment entered thereon for $27,668.28 damages (the value of the Vanderbilt, with interest) and costs, which was affirmed at the general term. Chase v. Belden, (Sup.) 1 N. Y. Supp. 48. An appeal was thereupon taken to the court of appeals, and the judgment affirmed, the record being: 'Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. All concur, except Gray, J., who reads for reversal, and judgment affirmed.' 117 N. Y. 637, 22 N. E. 963. The record here also shows this memorandum: 'No prevailing opinion written. See mandate at close of this opinion.' The dissenting opinion by Gray, J., is given in the record, and is reported in 22 N. E. 963. To review the judgment of the court of appeals, this writ of error was brought.