EBEET r. 80H00NEE EEPBEN DOUD. 627 �"by the ownersof the other fessel; and this, too, iu a c^se ■where the cross-action had beeu abandoned, so that the case, at the time this final order was made, stood upon the plead- ings as they were originally formed. �I refer next to the case of The Sapphire, 18 "Wall. 51. This was a case where the emperor of France filed a libel in the district court of California against the ship Sapphire, alleg- ing that a collision had occurred between that vessel and the Enryale, a vessel belonging to the French govemment, by which the latter was damaged. The libel charged the whole fault upon the respondent vessel. The owners of the Sap- phire, in their answer, charged the fault upon the Euryale. No cross libel was filed. The answer, though denying any fault on the part of the Sapphire, and alleging that whatever damage was done was due whoUyto the fault and negligence of the libellant's vessel, made no averment that any injury had been sustained by the Sapphire. ThuB the case upon the pleadings was like that at bar. The case proceeded to a hearing, and there was an interlocutory decree in favor of libellant, a reference to a commissioner to ascertain and compute the damages, and a final decree in favor of libellant for $15,000. That decree was affirmed in the circuit ppurt, and the case was then appealed to the supreme court. That court held both vessels in fault, and that the damages ought, therefore, to be equally divided^ and sent down a mandate direeting that a decree should be entered in the circuit court in conformity with such opinion. When the case reaohed the circuit court its previous decree was reversed, and it was decreed that the libellant recover against the Sapphire and her claimants the sum of $7,500, the same being one-half of the damages decreed in favor of the libellant and againstithe claimants. From that decree the owners of the Sapphire again appealed to the supreme court, alleging error in the proceedings of the circuit couàrt, for the reason that the dam- ages sustained by respondent were not taken into consider-r ation. Upon that appeal Justice Strong, expressing the opinion of the court, says : �"The question now presented îs whether the new deoroe ����
