Arundel Sand & Gravel Co. v. Naylor & Co.

Decision Date17 May 1917
Docket Number1499.
Citation242 F. 494
PartiesARUNDEL SAND & GRAVEL CO. v. NAYLOR & CO. et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

John Henry Skeen and Clarence A. Tucker, both of Baltimore, Md. (Knapp, Ulman & Tucker, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.

John B Deming and George Forbes, both of Baltimore, Md. (Whitelock Deming & Kemp, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PRITCHARD and KNAPP, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District Judge.

KNAPP Circuit Judge.

For a more detailed statement of facts reference is made to the reported opinion of the court below. 237 F. 725. It will serve the purpose of this appeal to say that the appellee Davison Chemical Company, hired from the appellant, Arundel Sand & Gravel Company, one of its scows, known as No. 63, to be used in unloading from a steamer in the harbor of Baltimore a cargo of pyrites consigned to the Davison Company, but belonging to Naylor & Co., the other appellee. During the progress of the work, and while alongside the steamer, the scow capsized and sunk, having on board at the time about 450 tons of pyrites which became a total loss. A libel was filed by the owner and consignee of the cargo against appellant, owner of the scow, and the Terminal Shipping Company, which was employed to unload the steamer and for whose use the scow was provided. The trial court held the appellant solely at fault and entered a decree against it for the resulting damages. As against the Terminal Company the libel was dismissed.

The numerous assignments of error are reducible to two questions which will be briefly considered. First is the question of law as to whether there was an implied warranty of the seaworthiness of the scow for the work to be performed. The scow had a capacity of 500 tons and appears to have been built primarily for transporting sand and gravel for its owner in local waters. It was not equipped with pumps, had no accommodations for a crew, and was not accompanied by any employe of the owner, or intended to be, when turned over to the Davison Company. The scow in question was one of a large number owned by appellant which were used mainly in its own business but which were frequently hired out to other parties, including the Davison Company. The record indicates that all the parties to this suit, and the businesses respectively carried on by them, were well known to each other, and the appellant must have been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wessel Duval & Co. v. Charleston Lighterage & Transfer Co., 929.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 31, 1928
    ...be resolved in favor of the shipper, and that seaworthiness must be shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Arundel, etc., Co. v. Naylor & Co. (C. C. A. 4) 242 F. 494; Oregon Round Lumber Co. v. Portland, etc., Co. (D. C.) 162 F. 912; The Rosalie McLoughlin (D. C.) 186 F. 255; The Ka......
  • Dempsey v. Downing
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 12, 1926
    ...which it was chartered. The rule of law is so well settled as not to need the aid of argument or citation." Arundel Sand & Gravel Co. v. Naylor & Co., 242 F. 494, 155 C. C. A. 270, an opinion of this court by Judge "The ground of liability, in the absence of any evidence of negligence, * * ......
  • Penn Builders & Supply Co. v. Braeburn Steel Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 13, 1921
    ... ... Walling ... v. Porter Gildersleeve Co. (D.C.) 222 F. 1002; ... Arundel Sand & Gravel Co. v. Naylor & Co., 242 F ... 494, 155 C.C.A. 270. The ... ...
  • Philadelphia, H. & P. R. Co. v. Lederer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 26, 1917

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