155 F. 29 (9th Cir. 1907), 1,377, Pacific Coast Co. v. Yukon Independent Transp. Co.

Docket Nº:1,377.
Citation:155 F. 29
Party Name:PACIFIC COAST CO. et al. v. YUKON INDEPENDENT TRANSP. CO.
Case Date:May 06, 1907
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 29

155 F. 29 (9th Cir. 1907)

PACIFIC COAST CO. et al.

v.

YUKON INDEPENDENT TRANSP. CO.

No. 1,377.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 6, 1907

Page 30

The appellee caused the steamship Senator to be libeled because of the breach of a maritime contract for the carriage of goods upon the steamship Senator from Seattle, consigned to the steamer Monarch at St. Michaels, at the mouth of the Yukon river. The goods consisted of a large quantity of merchandise, including perishable articles. The contract was made after negotiations between the representatives of the appellee and the appellants, with the understanding that the goods were intended for early sale in the Yukon river markets, and that the delivery was to be made as soon as the Senator should arrive at St. Michaels, or as soon as navigation was open in that harbor. The shipments were made about the end of May, 1901, and the voyage was the first of the season. It was known by the contracting parties that uncertainty existed as to whether the harbor of St. Michaels would be free of ice on the steamship's arrival, and that usually the harbor was not accessible before about the 1st of July. The Senator, on her way to St. Michaels, arrived at Nome on June 16th. After discharging two-thirds of her cargo at that port, she proceeded with the remainder, which was the merchandise consigned to the Monarch, and arrived off Golovin Bay on the morning of June 20th. Golovin Bay was found to be filled with ice, and, after cruising up and down off the face of the ice and making attempts to force a passage through it to St. Michaels, the Senator on the morning of the 21st returned to Nome, and there her master offered to a representative of the appellee to make delivery at ship's tackle. This offer was declined. The Senator then left Nome for Seattle, and reached that port on July 3d. On July 7th she departed from Seattle on a second voyage, having the appellee's cargo still on board. She went to Nome and thence to St. Michaels, where she discharged the cargo to the steamer Monarch on July 19th. The ice had left the St. Michaels Harbor about July 1st, and, if the Senator had remained off that port on her first voyage until July 2d, she could then have entered the harbor and discharged the cargo. The suit was brought to recover damages for loss on the goods and delay to the steamer Monarch. The District Court held that the Senator, by returning to Seattle without making delivery on the first voyage, made a breach of the contract of affreightment, and held the appellants liable to damages in the sum of $12,119.75, of which $4,119.75 was for loss on the goods, and $8,000 was for the delay of the steamer Monarch. The bills of lading contain the following provisions:

'Shipped by . . . per Pacific Coast Steamship Co. (hereinafter called carrier), to be forwarded per Steamer Senator or per some other of the carrier's steamers, or per some other steamer or steamers in the employ of said carrier, the articles or property enumerated hereon in apparent good order, except when otherwise noted, the value, weight, quantity, quality and condition of contents being unknown to said carrier, to be forwarded with as reasonable dispatch as the general business of the carrier will permit, and delivered at vessel's tackle at the port, place or landing of St. Michaels in like apparent good order (but with the option to the master to carry the property on deck, to deviate and to lighter, surf, transship, land and reship the said property or any thereof and to stop and land and receive passengers and freight at intermediate ports or places).'

'The property shall be received by the consignees thereof at the vessel's tackle immediately on arrival of the vessel at the port or place of delivery, without regard to weather; if the consignee is not on hand to receipt the property as discharged, then the carrier may deliver it to the wharfinger, or other party or person believed by said carrier to be responsible, and who will take charge of said property and pay freight on same, or the same may be kept on board or landed and stored in hulks, or put in lighters by the carrier, at the expense and risk of the owner, shipper or consignee, and at his or their risk of any nature whatever.'

'And further, that in case the vessel should be prevented by stress of weather or other cause from entering the port or place of delivery, or from discharging the whole or any part of her cargo there, the said property may, at the option of the master or agent, be conveyed upon said vessel to the nearest or other port, and thence returned to the port of delivery by the same or other vessel, subject to all the provisions of this contract in regard to the original voyage, and at the risk of the owner, shipper or consignee of said property.'

'The carrier shall not be required to deliver the property at the port of delivery at any specific or particular time, or to meet any particular market.'

'If in the judgment of the master of carrier's steamer it shall be impracticable or unsafe to land this freight at Nome on account of ice or weather, carrier may return same at owner's risk. On freight so returned same charges to be paid as if landed at Nome, but with no additional freight charge for returning to Seattle.'

The evidence showed that the negotiations for the shipment of the cargo commenced as early as May 12, 1901. H. V. V. Bean, manager of the appellee, called on C. W. Miller, assistant general agent of the Pacific

Page 31

Coast Steamship Company at Seattle, and asked for freight rates for the first voyage of the Senator to St. Michaels, and informed him that, if the goods were taken, delivery must be made on the first voyage, as it was desired to reach the early market on the Yukon river. Mr. Miller replied that the ice might not be out of the St. Michaels Harbor when the steamer arrived, to which Mr. Bean replied that he wanted it understood that delivery must be made at St. Michaels on that voyage, and that otherwise the goods would not be shipped. After that conversation there were others, in which Mr. Miller was informed that the goods were...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
16 practice notes
  • 90 S.E. 510 (N.C. 1916), 358, Reynolds v. Adams Express Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 15, 1916
    ...also in 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046; Pavitt v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 153 Pa. 302, 25 A. 1107; Pacific Coast et al. v. Yukon Trans. Co., 155 F. 29-36, 83 C. C. A. 625; Swift & Co. v. Furness, Withy & Co. (D. C.) 87 F. 345; Railroad v. Caldwell, 89 Ark. 218, 116 S.W. 210; Railroad v. Dunl......
  • 291 F.Supp. 479 (S.D.Tex. 1968), 64-H-171, International Drilling Co., N. V. v. M/V Doriefs
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit Southern District of Texas
    • October 15, 1968
    ...Grace & Co. v. Frank Waterhouse & Co., Inc., 264 F. 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1920); Pacific Coast Co. v. Yukon Independent Transp. Co., 155 F. 29 (9th Cir. 1907). Under these circumstances it is unnecessary to hold that the prior agreement replaced the bill of lading or that the bill of l......
  • 278 F. 459 (2nd Cir. 1921), 44, The Sarnia
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • December 14, 1921
    ...28 Fed.Cas. 1356, No. 17,056; The Wellington, 29 Fed.Cas. 626, No. 17,384; Pacific Coast Co. v. Yukon Independent Transportation Co., 155 F. 29, 83 C.C.A. 625; The Citta di Messina (D.C.) 169 F. 472, 475. It is true that in the case now before us the goods were shipped from New York to Lisb......
  • 53 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1931), 6514, Toyo Kisen Kaisha v. W.R. Grace & Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • November 30, 1931
    ...a carrier's contract was emphasized by the late Judge Gilbert of this court in Pacific Coast Co. et al. v. Yukon Independent Transp. Co., 155 F. 29, 34. Referring to the opinion of the District Court, the learned jurist stated: 'The court said: 'For this reason the courts are compelled, whe......
  • Free signup to view additional results
16 cases
  • 90 S.E. 510 (N.C. 1916), 358, Reynolds v. Adams Express Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • November 15, 1916
    ...also in 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046; Pavitt v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 153 Pa. 302, 25 A. 1107; Pacific Coast et al. v. Yukon Trans. Co., 155 F. 29-36, 83 C. C. A. 625; Swift & Co. v. Furness, Withy & Co. (D. C.) 87 F. 345; Railroad v. Caldwell, 89 Ark. 218, 116 S.W. 210; Railroad v. Dunl......
  • 291 F.Supp. 479 (S.D.Tex. 1968), 64-H-171, International Drilling Co., N. V. v. M/V Doriefs
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit Southern District of Texas
    • October 15, 1968
    ...Grace & Co. v. Frank Waterhouse & Co., Inc., 264 F. 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1920); Pacific Coast Co. v. Yukon Independent Transp. Co., 155 F. 29 (9th Cir. 1907). Under these circumstances it is unnecessary to hold that the prior agreement replaced the bill of lading or that the bill of l......
  • 278 F. 459 (2nd Cir. 1921), 44, The Sarnia
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • December 14, 1921
    ...28 Fed.Cas. 1356, No. 17,056; The Wellington, 29 Fed.Cas. 626, No. 17,384; Pacific Coast Co. v. Yukon Independent Transportation Co., 155 F. 29, 83 C.C.A. 625; The Citta di Messina (D.C.) 169 F. 472, 475. It is true that in the case now before us the goods were shipped from New York to Lisb......
  • 53 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1931), 6514, Toyo Kisen Kaisha v. W.R. Grace & Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • November 30, 1931
    ...a carrier's contract was emphasized by the late Judge Gilbert of this court in Pacific Coast Co. et al. v. Yukon Independent Transp. Co., 155 F. 29, 34. Referring to the opinion of the District Court, the learned jurist stated: 'The court said: 'For this reason the courts are compelled, whe......
  • Free signup to view additional results