The Lydian Monarch
| Decision Date | 21 March 1885 |
| Parties | THE LYDIAN MONARCH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
See & Bro., for libelant.
Butler Stillman & Hubbard, for respondent.
The libel was filed in the case to recover damages for injury to merchandise, to-wit, 21 bales or packages of burlaps, on the voyage of the steam-ship Lydian Monarch from Dundee, in Scotland, to the port of New York, the libel alleging that the master, officers, and crew of said steamer so negligently and carelessly conducted themselves that one or more of the side-ports were insufficiently or insecurely fastened, by means whereof sea water ran into the said vessel and upon the cargo, and greatly damaged the goods aforesaid. The shippers were James Duncan & Co., of Dundee, and the bill of lading acknowledges that the said packages were received on board in good order and well conditioned, and that they were to be delivered to the libelant in New York in like good order and well conditioned, subject, nevertheless, to a large number of exceptions and restrictions, which it is not pertinent to the case to fully enumerate. Among these limitations to the liability of the ship-owners were the following: They were not to be liable (1) for any damage which arose from perils of the seas; nor (2) in any case for more than the invoice or declared value of the goods.
The steamer sailed from London on March 30, 1884, and arrived at her port in New York, (Jersey City,) on the fourteenth of April following. The consignees paid the freight and duties before the merchandise was delivered to him. When delivered from the ship, he discovered that twenty-six or seven of the bales were more or less damaged by sea water. He sent at once for an insurance appraiser, Mr. Cleveland, who examined the goods, and reported, as an expert, that 21 bales were badly damaged, and that the best disposition for all concerned was to sell the same at public sale, giving interested parties notice of the sale. Acting on this advice, he sent the 21 bales to the auctioneers Field, Chapman & Fenner, and gave notice to the recognized agents of the steam-ship company, Patton, Vickers & Co., of the time and place of sale, and that the steamer would be held for all loss sustained. The sale was made, and the net proceeds realized were $3,110.87, from which sum the libelant claims should be deducted $43.25, the amount of the damages to the other bales not sold, and the further sum of $20 paid to the appraiser for his certificate of loss. He then proves the value of burlaps in good condition, in the New York market, on that day; claims that the bales sold were worth $3,771.47, and demands of the respondent the difference between these sums as the measure of his loss.
Two questions are thus presented: (1) Was the injury to merchandise caused by perils of the sea, for which the vessel is not responsible? (2) If not, has the libelant, under a proper construction of the bill of lading, sustained any damage for which the respondent is liable?
1. The bill of lading acknowledging that the burlaps was delivered to the steamer in good order and condition, and the proofs showing that it was damaged by sea water, it is incumbent on the respondent to prove that the loss was occasioned by perils of the sea. Failing in this, the company is liable for the damage sustained....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE WARREN
......Woodruff, 1 Black, 156, 169 17 L. Ed. 97; The Majestic, 166 U. S. 375, 386, 17 S. Ct. 597 41 L. Ed. 1039, and authorities there cited; The Lydian Monarch D. C. 23 F. 298; The Mascotte, 2 C. C. A. 399, 51 F. 605; The Compta, 4 Sawy. 375, 377, Fed. Cas. No. 3,069; Hunt v. The Cleveland, 6 McLean, ......
-
Pacific Coast S.S. Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co.
......347, 357; Nelson v. Woodruff, 1 Black, 156, 169; The Majestic, 166 U.S. 375,. 386, 17 Sup.Ct. 597, and authorities there cited; The Lydian. Monarch, 23 F. 298; The Mascotte, 2 C.C.A. 399, 51 F. 605;. The Compta, 4 Sawy. 375, 377, Fed. Cas. No. 3,069; Hunt. v. The Cleveland, 6 McLean, ......
-
H. Wehmann v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co.
...... the Federal Courts. Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad. Co., 112 U.S. 331; The Bermuda, 29 F. 399; The New. Orleans, 26 F. 44; The Lydian Monarch, 23 F. 298; York. Co. v. Central Railroad, 3 Wall. 107; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 7 Wall. 357; Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264; ......
-
Brown v. Cunard S.S. Co.
...... the bill of lading. It is believed that the only cases where. limitation of liability to invoice value has been so. construed are The Lydian Monarch, 23 F. 298; Pearse v. Steam-Ship Co., 24 F. 285. The plaintiff submits that. these decisions ought not to be followed, because the rule of. ......