La Compania Bilbaina de Navigacion de Bilbao v. Spanish-American Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1887
• Citation: 31 F. 492
• Parties: LA COMPANIA BILBAINA DE NAVIGACION DE BILBAO v. SPANISH-AMERICAN LIGHT & POWER CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

31 F. 492

LA COMPANIA BILBAINA DE NAVIGACION DE BILBAO v. SPANISH-AMERICAN LIGHT & POWER CO. ^[1]

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

June 14, 1887

Whitehead, Parker & Dexter, for libelants.

Wingate & Cullen, for respondents.

BROWN J.

The written charter-party, signed by the broker of the libelants did not constitute a legal contract binding upon either of the parties, because in signing it the broker exceeded his authority, and that fact was communicated at the time to the broker of the respondents. It was agreed between the brokers of each party, however, that if the clause relating to the extension of time to twelve months, and the clause requiring the ship to fit up the oil-tanks at her expense were objected to by the owners, the matter should be settled by negotiation.

The respondents, from the first, refused the charter unless the ship should fit up the tanks at her expense, and that fact was stated to the libelants' broker at the time, and the owners of the ship in England subsequently refused to confirm the two clauses in the charter as proposed by the brokers. Notice of this refusal was given to the charterers, and they never consented to waive these two clauses. The agreement of the brokers was that, upon such a difference, the matter should be settled by negotiation. But it never was settled. Neither side apparently wished to push the matter to a settlement, though each understood the difference. No agreement as to these two clauses was ever arrived at, while both deemed them material. The subsequent conduct of each shows that neither side receded, or intended to recede, from its position. When the vessel arrived, ready for the first voyage, neither party made inquiry as to the disputed clauses. The duty of inquiry rested upon each alike, if they wished to have a fixed agreement. Both, in fact, assented to the use of the ship on the first voyage, without any definite agreement on the disputed points, and without the settlement by negotiation that had been agreed on by the brokers. The charterers did not object because they were not ready to use tanks. When the respondents were ready to use the tanks, and required the vessel to fit them up in pursuance of the terms of the charter, the libelants refused to do so. The cargo was then taken in barrels, under a stipulation that that might be done without prejudice to the rights of either; the respondents claiming damages for the extra expenses. Subsequently, the owners fitted up the tanks, claiming that the expenses would be at the charge of the charterers, while the latter notified the owners that they would not pay for any such expense.

As the...