George Deslions v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique

Citation28 S.Ct. 664,52 L.Ed. 973,210 U.S. 95
Decision Date18 May 1908
Docket NumberNo. 33,33
PartiesGEORGE DESLIONS, W. C. Perry, Administrator of Kate M. Perry, et al., Petitioners, v. LA COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, Owner of the Steamship La Bourgogne
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 95-97 intentionally omitted]

[Argument of Counsel from pages 95-97 intentionally omitted] Messrs. J. Parker Kirlin, Robert D. Benedict, Edward G. Benedict, and A. Gordon Murray for petitioners.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 97-100 intentionally omitted] Messrs. William G. Choate, Edward K. Jones, and Joseph P. Nolan for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 101-103 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

On July 4, 1898, in the Atlantic ocean, about 60 miles off Sable island, as the result of a collision between the British ship Cromartyshire and the French steamship La Bourgogne, bound from New York to Havre, La Bourgogne was hopelessly injured, sank in a short time, and most of her passengers, her captain, other principal officers, and many of the crew, went down with the ship. Numerous suits in admiralty and actions at law were brought in various Federal and state courts against La Bourgogne, or her owners, to recover damages for loss of life, loss of baggage, and other personal effects. These claims aggregated a very large sum. In May, 1900, La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, a French corporation, the owner of La Bourgogne, petitioned the United States district court for the southern district of New York, seeking to obtain the benefit of the laws of the United States limiting the liability of shipowners. It was averred that the collision was caused solely by the fault of the Cromartyshire, but, even if there was fault on the part of La Bourgogne, it was without the privity or knowledge of the company. The interest of the company in the steamship and her pending freight was alleged to be only about $100, the value of articles saved from the wreck. A list of the pending suits was annexed. It was prayed that a trustee be appointed, to whom the interest of the company in the steamship and her pending freight might be transferred. A monition warning all persons having claims by reason of the collision to prove the same, within a time to be fixed, was asked, as also that a commissioner be appointed to take such proof, and that the prosecution of all other actions because of the collision be restrained. Finally, it was prayed that the company be decreed not to be liable for the loss of La Bourgogne, or, if responsible, its liability, in conformity to the statute, be limited to the property surrendered.

The court directed the company to transfer to a named trustee its interest in the steamship and her pending freight, and, following this order, a formal transfer was executed. There were, however, actually surrendered to the trustee only certain lifeboats and life rafts. A monition and a preliminary injunction were ordered, and a commissioner was named to take proof of claims within a time fixed. In conformity with a rule of the court relating to the procedure to limit liability, which is in the margin,1 the commissioner in a short while

1 Rule No. 78 of the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York:

'Proof of claims presented to the commissioner shall be made by or before the return day of the monition by affidavit specifying the nature, grounds, and amount thereof, the particular dates on which the same accrued, and what, if any, credits were given thereon, and what payments, if any, have been made on account; with a bill of particulars giving the respective dates and amounts, if the same consists of several different items. Such proof shall be deemed sufficient, unless, within five days after the return day of the monition, or after interlocutory decree in case of issue joined by answer to the petition, or within such further time as may be granted by the court, the allowance of the claim shall be objected to by the petitioner or by some other creditor filing a claim, who shall give notice in writing of such objection to the commissioner and to the proctors of the claim objected to, if any. Any claim so objected to must be established by further legal prima facie proof on notice to the objecting party, as in ordinary cases; but any creditor desiring to contest the same upon any specific defense must, with this notice of objection, or subsequently, if allowed by the commissioner or the court, state such defense, or be precluded from giving evidence thereof; and the unsuccessful party to such contest may be charged with the costs thereof. The commissioner shall, on the return day of the monition, file in open court a list of all claims presented to him.' reported that claims aggregating more than $2,000,000 had been presented. Most were for losses occasioned by death, and the others were for personal injuries and for loss of baggage or other personal effects.

Disregarding the technical attitude of the parties on this record, we shall speak of La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, owner of La Bourgogne, as the petitioner and the adverse parties as claimants.

Without stating details, it suffices to say that the petitioner challenged the validity and amount of the claims reported. The claimants traversed the petition for limitation of liability, charging that the collision had been solely caused by the fault of La Bourgogne in going at an immoderate rate of speed in a dense fog, and that such fault was with the privity and knowledge of the petitioner. This latter was based on averments that the petitioner had negligently failed to make and enforce adequate regulations to prevent its steamers being run at an immoderate speed in a fog, that it had knowledge that its steamers were habitually so run, and because La Bourgogne was not fully manned and equipped as required by law, had no wateright bulkheads, and was not furnished with boats or proper disengaging apparatus, as required by the laws of the United States. It was further charged that the petitioner was not entitled to a limitation of liability, because it had not actually surrendered the freight pending, and besides had not surrendered the sum of § subsidy given by the French government for carrying the mails and for other services.

Pending action upon the report, the case proceeded as to the general questions of fault for the collision and the right to a limitation of liability. During the proceedings, in answer to interrogatories propounded on behalf of certain of the claimants, the petitioner admitted that it had received the following sums:

                     From the French government for the 
                     carriage of mails, etc., between 
                     Havre and New York during the 
                     year 1898, being for fifty-two 
                     trips between Havre and New York
                      going and returning.......................... 5,473,400.00. francs
                 
                     For passage money on the
                      last trip from Havre to New York................ 44,480.70.   "
                 
                     For freight collected on the
                      same sailing.................................... 14,088.95.   "
                 
                     For passage on the trip
                      from New York to Havre
                      in which La Bourgogne was lost................. 100,703.08.   "
                 
                     For freight on the same sailing.................. 12,716.43.   "
                 

The trustee named by the court thereupon demanded the actual surrender of one fifty-second part of the annual subsidy and all the freight and passage money above referred to. The petitioner refusing to comply, in April, 1901, the trustee and some of the claimants asked an order directing the payment of said amounts with interest from the date of the collision. On May 11, 1901, the court declined tom make the order, and reserved the matter for further consideration.

In the autumn following, in October, 1901, the case came on for trial before Townsend, District Judge. After taking testimony in open court for several days an order was entered, directing that any further testimony be taken out of court. This being done, the case in its then stage was heard. The court (Townsend, District Judge) expressed its opinion as to fault for the collision, as to whether an adequate surrender had been made of the interest of the petitioner in the steamship and her pending freight, as to whether the petitioner was entitled to a limitation of its liability, and as to whether claims resulting from loss of life were, under any circumstances, entitled to be extablished against the fund. No opinion was expressed as to the legal merit of or the amount of the other claims against the fund. The conclusions of the court were thus by it summed up (117 Fed. 261):

First, that the prayer for limitation should be granted; second, that claims for loss of life should be excluded from consideration in this proceeding; third, that the Bourgogne was to blame for the collision; fourth, that claims other than those for loss of life be referred to the commissioner 'to take testimony as to the amount of such claims, and report the same to this court, together with his opinion, with all convenient speed;' fifth, that the petitioner has duly surrendered its interest in the Bourgogne and her pending freight by the transfer made to the trustee, and that the value of such interest extends no further than the value of the lifeboats and life rafts.

A decree was entered conformably to these views. A few weeks thereafter the court permitted the S. S. White Dental Company to file a claim for the value of certain merchandise shipped under a bill of lading, alleged to be of the value of $17,108.40.

The commissioner heard testimony concerning the validity and the amount of the respective claims. On May 9, 1904, the commissioner filed his report. The claim of the S. S. White Dental Company was disallowed on the ground that La Bourgogne was in all respects seaworthy at the time of her sailing on the voyage on which she was lost, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
173 cases
  • Tug Allie-B Inc. v. U.S., ALLIE-
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • November 16, 2001
    ...... and knowledge within the meaning of the statute." Deslions v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 210 U.S. 95, 122, ......
  • The Erie Lighter 108
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • April 16, 1918
  • Southern Pacific Company v. Marie Jensen
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 28, 1916
    ...S. S. Co. v. Gilmore) 207 U. S. 398, 52 L. ed. 264, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 133; La Bourgogne (Deslions v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique) 210 U. S. 95, 138, 52 L. ed. 973, 993, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 664). See The City of Norwald, 55 Fed. 98, 106. Equally well established is the rule that state ......
  • Lauritzen v. Larsen
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1953
    ...court. For on what ground was the limitation of liability allowed in The Scotland or La Bourgogne (Deslions v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 210 U.S. 95, 28 S.Ct. 664, 52 L.Ed. 973)? * * * The essential point was that the limitation might be applied to foreign ships if sued in this......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Admiralty & maritime law - Ninth Circuit relocates "high seas" under Death on the High Seas Act.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2013
    • March 22, 2013
    ...Co., 213 U.S. 347, 355 (1909) (defining "high seas" as area "subject to no sovereign"); Deslions v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 210 U.S. 95, 115 (1908) (describing "high seas" as waters where no nation controls); Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Gilmore, 207 U.S. 398, 403 (1907) (definin......
  • MDL consolidation of aviation disaster cases before and after Lexecon.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 67 No. 2, April 2000
    • April 1, 2000
    ...disaster cases included limitations of liability, such as in maritime cases, see, e.g., Deslions v. La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 210 U.S. 95 (1908); Place v. Norwich & New York Transp. Co., 118 U.S. 468 (1886); Steam Ship Co. v. Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578 (1883); Norwich Co. v. Wr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT