The Silvia
| Decision Date | 17 October 1898 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,5 |
| Citation | 43 L.Ed. 241,171 U.S. 462,19 S.Ct. 7 |
| Parties | THE SILVIA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Harrington Putnam and C. C. Burlingham, for appellant.
J. Parker Kirlin, for appellee.
This was a libel in admiralty, filed June 14, 1894, in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, by the Franklin Sugar-Refining Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, against the steamship Silvia, of Liverpool, owned by the Red Cross Line of steamers, to recover damages for injuries to a cargo of sugar, owned by the libelant, which had been shipped on or about February 15, 1894, upon the Silvia, at Matanzas, Cuba, for Philadelphia, under a bill of lading, by which the sugar was 'to be delivered in the like good order and condition at the port of Philadelphia (the dangers of the seas only excepted),' upon payment of agree freight, 'and all other conditions as par charter party dated New York, 31st January, 1894.'
The charter party, which had been made and concluded at New York, January 31, 1894, provided that the Silvia, then at Tucacas, Venezuela, should proceed as soon as possible in ballast to Matanzas for a voyage thence to Philadelphia, New York, or Boston, and contained these provisions:
The Silvia, with the sugar in her lower hold, sailed from Matanzas for Philadelphia on the morning of February 16, 1894. The compartment between decks next the forecastle had been fitted up to carry steerage passengers, but on this voyage contained only spare sails and ropes, and a small quantity of stores. This compartment had four round ports on each side, which were about eight or nine feet above the water line when the vessel was deep laden. Each port was eight inches in diameter, furnished with a cover of glass five-eighths of an inch thick, set in a brass frame, as well as with an inner cover or dummy of iron. When the ship sailed, the weather was fair, and the glass covers were tightly closed; but the iron covers were left open, in order to light the compartment should it become necessary to get anything from it, and the hatches were battened down, but could have been opened in two minutes by knocking out the wedges. In the afternoon of the day of sailing, the ship encountered rough weather, and the glass cover of one of the ports was broken,—whether by the force of the seas or by floating timber or wreckage was wholly a matter of conjecture, —and the water came in through the port, and damaged the sugar.
The decree of the district court dismissed the libel, and was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 64 Fed. 607; 35 U. S. App. 395, 15 C. C. A. 362, and 68 Fed. 230. The libelant applied for, and obtained, a writ of certiorari from this court.
It was adjudged by this court at the last term that the act of congress of February 13, 1893 (chapter 105, known as the 'Harter Act'), has not released the owner of a ship from the duty of making her seaworthy at the beginning of her voyage. The Carib Prince, 170 U. S. 655, 18 Sup. Ct. 753.
But the contention that the Silvia was unseaworthy when she sailed from Matanzas is unsupported by the facts. The test of seaworthiness is whether the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo which she has undertaken to transport. The port...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poignant v. United States
......382, 384. In the Boudoin opinion the court makes it abundantly clear that it has not overruled the long-settled doctrine that to be seaworthy a vessel does not need to be free from all cause for mishap, — that it is enough if it is reasonably fit. In its opinion the court cited The Silvia, 171 U.S. 462, 19 S.Ct. 7, 8, 43 L.Ed. 241, for its statement that "the test of seaworthiness in a cargo suit is whether the vessel is reasonably fit to carry the cargo." (Emphasis supplied.) And to like effect it cited The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1, 24 S.Ct. 1, 48 L.Ed. 65. It approved the use made ......
-
Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines
...... It is a story often told that the warranty of seaworthiness is implied by maritime law from the relationship of the parties; originally between shipowner and shipper, The Southwark, 1903, 191 U.S. 1, 9, 24 S.Ct. 1, 48 L.Ed. 65; The Silvia, 1898, 171 U.S. 462, 464, 19 S.Ct. 7, 43 L.Ed. 241; then between shipowner 147 F. Supp. 225 and seaman, The Osceola, 1903, 189 U.S. 158, 23 S.Ct. 483, 47 L.Ed. 760; and later between shipowner and longshoreman. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 1946, 328 U.S. 85, 66 S.Ct. 872, 90 L.Ed. 1099; cf.: ......
-
Gillespie v. United States Steel Corporation
......666, No. 11,754; The Moslem, 17 Fed.Cas. 894, No. 9,875. The other route through which the concept of unseaworthiness found its way into the maritime law was via the rules covering marine insurance and the carriage of goods by sea. The Caledonia, 157 U.S. 124 15 S.Ct. 537, 39 L.Ed. 644; The Silvia, 171 U.S. 462 19 S.Ct. 7, 43 L.Ed. 241; The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1 24 S.Ct. 1, 48 L.Ed. 65; I Parsons on Marine Insurance (1868) 367-400. . "Not until the late nineteenth century did there develop in American admiralty courts the doctrine that seamen had a right to recover for ......
-
Earles v. Union Barge Line Corporation, 72-1313
......Southern S.S. Co., 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed. 561 (1944). . 17 Dixon v. The Cyrus, 7 Fed.Cas. pp. 755, 757 (No. 3,930) (D.C.D.Pa. 1789). . 18 The Moslem, 17 Fed.Cas. p. 894 (No. 9,875) (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1846). . 19 The Silvia, 171 U.S. 462, 464, 19 S.Ct. 7, 8, 43 L.Ed. 241 (1898). . 20 The Southwark, 191 U.S. 1, 24 S.Ct. 1, 48 L.Ed. 65 (1903). . 21 189 U.S. 158, 23 S.Ct. 483, 47 L.Ed. 760 (1903). In The Osceola, the United States Supreme Court stated as the second proposition of ......