Opinion of the Court. ceived the announcement with the utmost unconcern, as if it were a matter in which he had no interest, and, some time subsequent to the 28th of January following, he made a deed of the property to the Ranch Company. He made no complaint of having been misled by Brackenridge, although no court, under the circumstances, would have enforced the contract of May 24, 1884, even if it were valid under the statute of frauds. As early as 1823, it was held by this court in Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421, 449, to be "a settled rule in equity that a purchaser without notice, to be entitled to protection, must not only be so at the time of the contract or conveyance, but at the time of the payment of the purchase money." Such is undoubtedly the law. Swayze v. Burke, 12 Pet. 11; Tourville v. Naish, 3 P. Wms. 306; Paul v. Fulton, 25 Missouri, 156; Dugan v. Vattier, 3 Blackford, 245; Patten v. Moore, 32 N. H. 382; Blanchard v. Tyler, 12 Michigan, 339; Palmer v. Williams, 24 Michigan, 328; Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cowen, 622. It is insisted, however, that this principle has no application to the purchase of negotiable instruments like the bonds in question. We know of no such distinction, however, and in the case of Dresser v. Missouri & Iowa Railway Construction Co., 93 U. S. 92, the rule was expressly applied to a purchaser of negotiable paper. In that case the plaintiff purchased the notes in controversy, and paid $500 as part of the consideration before notice of any fraud in the contract; and it was held that if, after receiving notice of the fraud, he paid the balance due upon the notes, he was only protected pro tanto; that is, to the amount paid before he received notice; citing Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286; Crandall v. Vickery, 45 Barb. 156; Allaire v. Hartshorn, 1 Zabr. (21 N. J. Law,) 665. While the notice received by the plaintiff may not have gone to the extent of informing him of the particular facts showing the invalidity of the bonds, he was informed that the town was contesting its liability, and that Brackenridge himself was in litigation with it over the payment of the coupons. Receiving this information as he did, not only from his vendor, Opinion of the Court. -but from his own attorneys, from whom he could have learned all the facts by inquiry, it is mere quibbling to say, that he had no notice that the bonds were invalid. While purchasers of negotiable securities are not chargeable with constructive notice of the pendency of a suit affecting the title or validity of the securities, it has never been doubted, as was said in Scotland County v. Hill, 112 U. S. 183, 185, that those who buy such securities from litigating parties with actual notice of a suit, do so at their peril, and must abide the result the same as the parties from whom they got their title. Under the circumstances, it was bad faith or wilful ignorance under the rule laid down in Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. 343, and Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110, to forbear making further inquiries. No rule of law protects a purchaser who wilfully closes his ears to information, or refuses to make inquiry when circumstances of grave suspicion imperatively demand it. Upon the whole, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the purchases of these bonds by Brackenridge and Lytle were never made in good faith, but were merely fictitious, and that their real ownership is still in some one, who is affected with notice of their invalidity, and has endeavored by feigned transfers to get them into the hands of some one who can pose before the court as a bona fide purchaser. The judgment of the court below is therefore Affirmed. Syllabus. THE CITY OF NEW YORK.1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 61. Argued November 30, December 1, 1892.- Decided January 3, 1893. In construing the act of February 16, 1875, 18 Stat. 315, c. 77, so far as it relates to admiralty suits, it is settled: (1) That the facts found by the court below are conclusive; that a bill of exceptions cannot be used to bring up the evidence for a review of the findings; that the only rulings upon which this court is authorized to pass are such as might be presented by a bill of exceptions prepared as in an action at law; and that the findings have practically the same effect as the special verdict of a jury; (2) That it is only the ultimate facts which the court is bound to find; and that this court will not take notice of a refusal to find the mere incidental facts, which only amount to evidence from which the ultimate fact is to be obtained; (3) That if the court below neglects or refuses to make a finding one way or the other, as to the existence of a material fact which has been established by uncontradicted evidence, or if it finds such a fact when not supported by any evidence whatever, and an exception be taken, the question may be brought up for review in that particular. Applying these rules to the findings in the present case, Held (1) That there was gross negligence on the part of the steamship in failing to run at moderate speed in a fog, and in failing to take the proper precautions when the proximity of the sailing vessel became known; (2) That so far as the barque was concerned there was evidence to support the findings of the Circuit Court, and that these findings justify the conclusion that its change of course was made in extremis. The probability that a steamer or a vessel sailing with a free wind will pursue the course customarily pursued in that vicinity by vessels bound from and to the same port, is so strong, that a deviation from that course without apparent cause will not be considered as established without a clear preponderance of testimony. 1 The docket title to this case is: John E. Alexandre, J. Joseph Alexandre, and J. Henry Alexandre, executors of Francis Alexandre, deceased, et al., claimants of the American steamship City of New York, her engines, etc., Appellants v. John Machan, et al., owners of the British barque Helen, etc. Statement of the Case. There is no such certainty of the exact position of a horn blown in a fog, as will justify a steamer in speculating upon the probability of avoiding it by a change of helm, without taking the additional precaution of stopping until its location is definitely ascertained. Where fault on the part of one vessel is established by uncontradicted testimony, and such fault is, of itself, sufficient to account for the disaster, it is not enough for such vessel to raise a doubt with regard to the management of the other vessel. THIS was a libel by the owners of the British barque Helen against the American steamship City of New York for a collision, which occurred on the evening of June 28, 1879, off the New Jersey coast between Barnegat and Absecon, and resulted in the sinking of the Helen, and the total loss of the vessel and cargo. The District Court found both vessels to have been in fault, and decreed an apportionment of damages. 15 Fed. Rep. 624. Both parties appealed to the Circuit Court, by which the decree of the District Court was reversed, the City of New York found to have been solely in fault, and a final decree entered for the libellants for $60,223.12, including costs. 35 Fed. Rep. 604. From this decree the owners of the steamship appealed to this court. The following facts and conclusions of law were found by the Circuit Court: "1. The British barque Helen, an iron vessel of 282 tons register, while on a voyage from Havana to New York City, loaded with sugar, was sunk by collision with the steamship City of New York, June 28, 1879, about 10.50 P.M. The captain and three of the seamen of the barque were drowned when the vessel sank. "2. The collision took place at a point off the coast of New Jersey six and one-quarter miles from shore, in 10 fathoms of water, 12 and miles from Barnegat light-house and 9 miles from Tucker's Beach light-house. "The city of New York was a wooden steamship 242 feet long and 1715 tons register, having a left-handed propeller, and was bound on a voyage from New York to Havana. Her full speed was about 12 knots an hour, and when going at full speed her headway could not be stopped by reversing her engines within a distance of an eighth of a mile. "3. On the night in question the wind was blowing strong Statement of the Case. About half an from the south-west or the south-south-west. hour preceding the collision the night became foggy; so much so that vessels could not discover one another at a distance of one-eighth of a mile. During this time and until within about three or four minutes before the collision the vessels had been approaching each other, the course of the steamer being about S. by W. W. and the course of the barque being about N.E. The steamship was going about 11 knots an hour, which was all the speed she could make against the wind. The barque was going about 4 knots an hour, and each vessel kept her respective course until she heard the fog signal of the other. "4. During the half hour preceding the collision three seamen were on the deck of the barque besides the mate, one seaman being at the wheel and two on the lookout forward, alternately blowing the fog horn, and the barque's lights were properly set and burning. During the same time the navigation of the steamer was in charge of her second mate, her quarter-master was at the wheel, her engine was in charge of a competent engineer, she had a lookout on the forward deck, and her regulation lights were properly set and burning. The lookout on each vessel was vigilant. Each vessel observed the proper fog signals. The steamer maintained her full speed against the wind until her engines were reversed, just before she struck the barque. "5. Before either vessel discovered the other those in charge of each heard the fog signals of the other. At about two minutes prior to the collision those in charge of the steamer first heard the fog horn of the barque, and from tue apparent direction of the sound thought she was one point off the steamer's starboard bow. Immediately upon hearing the fog horn the mate ordered the wheel of the steamer put to starboard and hard-a-starboard. The order was promptly executed and the steamer proceeded on under full speed until those in charge discovered the sails of the barque. The steamer had run under hard-a-starboard helm at least a minute before the barque was seen. Those in charge of the steamer then discovered that the barque's course was eastward, across the steamer's bow. The steamer then sounded succes |