St Johns Shipping Corporation v. Companhia Geral Commercial Do Rio De Janeiro

• Citation: 44 S.Ct. 30,68 L.Ed. 201,263 U.S. 119
• Decision Date: 12 November 1923
• Docket Number: No. 43,43
• Parties: ST. JOHNS N. F. SHIPPING CORPORATION v. S. A. COMPANHIA GERAL COMMERCIAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO
• Court: United States Supreme Court

263 U.S. 119

44 S.Ct. 30

68 L.Ed. 201

ST. JOHNS N. F. SHIPPING CORPORATION

v S. A. COMPANHIA GERAL COMMERCIAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO.

No. 43.

Argued Oct. 4, 1923.

Decided Nov. 12, 1923.

Mr. Clarence Bishop Smith, of New York City, for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 119-121 intentionally omitted] Mr. E. Curtis Rouse, of New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The General Commercial Company, Limited, doing business as commission merchant and exporting concern at New York, in May, 1918, old 800 barrels of rosin c. i. f. to the respondent, a Brazilian corporation. and procured a written freight reservation or agreement from the agents of the schooner St. Johns N. F. to carry the goods to Rio de Janeiro, 'on or under deck, ship's option,' and subject 'to terms of bills of lading in use by steamer's agents.'

The rosin was loaded on board June 11th and clean receipts without indorsement concerning stowage—were given therefor. A day or two later, upon prepayment of freight, the ship issued a clean bill of lading in the usual form. It contained no reference to the prior freight agreement. The goods were placed on deck, but neither the shipper nor the consignee knew this until after the loss occurred. There was no general custom at the port so to stow goods of this kind for such a voyage. The vessel was a general ship carrying many kinds of merchandise and no charter party question is involved. She sailed from New York June 19th. Before reaching Rio de Janeiro she encountered a storm and for sufficient cause the master jettisoned the rosin in order to relieve her. The loss resulted directly from the on deck stowage; the under deck cargo was safely delivered.

Respondent libeled the schooner and demanded the value of the goods at destination. It claims that by issuing the clean bill of lading the vessel in effect notified the shipper that she had exercised the option specified by the freight agreement and would stow underdeck; also, that the ship broke her contract as by deviation and thereby lost the benefit of limitation or relieving clauses in the bill.

The owners maintain that as the freight agreement gave an option as to place of stowage it was unnecessary for the bill of lading to specify the action taken in respect thereto, and that silence did not amount to a promise to carry under deck. Moreover, that consent to deck stowage sufficiently appeared by the bill of lading read with the freight agreement and therefore there was no departure and no ground for assessing damages.

The court below sustained the position of the respondent and decreed accordingly. The St. Johns N. F. (C. C. A.) 280 Fed. 553.

We find no conflict between the written original freight contract and the bill of lading. The former referred to a bill thereafter to be issued and made the place of stowage optional with the ship. When issued under such circumstances the bill amounted to a declaration that the option had been exercised and the goods would go under deck.

We are not dealing with a case arising under a general port custom permitting above deck stowage notwithstanding a clean bill, with notice of which all shippers are charged. When there is no such custom and no express...