Tristram Clark, Royal Williams, Ebenezer Lellan, Thomas Lellan, and James Williams, Claimants of the Barque Susan Lind, Appellants v. Nathaniel Barnwell and James Revenel, Copartners Trading Under the Firm of Barnwell Ravenel
| Decision Date | 01 December 1851 |
| Citation | 13 L.Ed. 985,12 How. 272,53 U.S. 272 |
| Parties | TRISTRAM CLARK, ROYAL WILLIAMS, EBENEZER McLELLAN, THOMAS McLELLAN, AND JAMES R. S. WILLIAMS, CLAIMANTS OF THE BARQUE SUSAN W. LIND, APPELLANTS, v. NATHANIEL BARNWELL AND JAMES REVENEL, COPARTNERS TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF BARNWELL & RAVENEL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Page 273
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina.
It was originally a libel, filed in the District Court by Barnwell & Ravenel against the ship Susan W. Lind, under the following circumstances:
On the 4th of March, 1848, Richard Shiel & Co. shipped, at Liverpool, in the ship Susan W. Lind, Tristram Clark, master, twenty-four boxes of cotton thread, consigned to Barnwell & Ravenel at Charleston. The bill of lading contained the usual clause, 'to be delivered in like good order, (all and every, the dangers and accidents of the seas and navigation, of whatsoever nature and kind, excepted,') and was signed by Clark, with the remark, 'contents unknown.'
The vessel sailed from Liverpool on the 14th of March, and arrived at Charleston on the 13th of May.
On his arrival, the captain made a protest, showing that the voyage had been very boisterous, and that the vessel had often shipped large quantities of water.
On the 15th of May, the captain requested the wardens of the port to make the survey of his vessel, and they continued the inspection during the discharging of the cargo. The following is that part of their report which related to the goods in question:
'On the 29th and 31st, the wardens examined twenty-two cases marked C [B R] + 71 & 92. After they were landed and in store, found many of them stained outside with mud, dry, and in good order; on opening the cases, the wood inside in several of the cases appeared stained; inside of these cases were stowed small boxes; on opening them, the cotton thread contained therein was found musty, mouldy, and damaged; which, in our opinion, has been caused by the great humidity, sweat, and dampness of the hold.'
Barnwell & Ravenel also had a survey made by Mood and Smith, who reported as follows:
'That we found the whole of the contents of the said twenty-two
Page 274
cases to be in a damaged and unmerchantable condition; and we concurred in recommending an early sale thereof at public auction, for account of whom it may concern. And we do further certify that, if the said cotton sewing-thread had been landed in a sound and merchantable state, the same would be worth in this market, at the present time, for cash, forty-five dollars per box, containing one hundred dozen spools, say 22 cases, each containing 6 boxes of 100 dozen.
132 boxes a $45 per box, $5940
'Witness our hands, at Charleston aforesaid, the thirty-first day of May, in the year 1848.
WM. G. MOOD,
THOS. P. SMITH.'
The goods were sold at auction, and produced only the net sum of $3,335.09; but the duties being abated by $376.02, the loss was claimed to amount to $2,228.89.
On the 31st of May, 1848, Barnwell & Ravenel filed their libel in the District Court of the United States against the ship, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and against Clark and all persons who should intervene.
On the 13th of June, 1848, Clark filed a claim for himself, Royal Williams, Ebenezer McLellan, Thomas McLellan, and James R. S. Williams, all of Portland, in Maine; and afterwards an answer was filed, denying all the allegations of the libel.
A considerable amount of evidence was heard, tending to show the value of the articles shipped, the state in which they were landed, the amount of damage sustained and the causes to which it could be attributed.
On the 24th of June, 1848, the district judge dismissed the libel on the ground of there not being introduced at the trial of the cause, sufficient evidence to establish the fact of the goods being in good order and condition at the time of their shipment.
The libellants appealed to the Circuit Court. Additional testimony was taken to show that the goods were shipped in good condition.
On the 8th of May, 1849, the Circuit Court reversed the decree of the District Court, 'conclusive evidence having been given to this court which was not produced before the said District Court as to the shipment of the goods at Liverpool in good order and condition,' and decreed that the respondents should pay to the libellants the sum of $2,228.89 with costs.
The respondents appealed to this court. It was argued by Mr. Evans for the appellants, and Mr. Coxe for the appellees.
The whole evidence having been brought up and the argument
Page 275
consisting chiefly of an examination of the facts proven, it is obvious that only the points made by counsel can be stated.
The counsel for the appellants contended,
1. That the injury which the thread was found to have received was not occasioned by any defect or want of seaworthiness of the vessel, or any want of care in the stowage of the cargo, or in navigating the vessel; nor by any neglect, fault, or mismanagement of the master or crew. That salt in sacks is not an unsuitable article to compose a part of the cargo in a general ship.
That the injury which the thread appeared to have sustained was not occasioned by the salt which composed a portion of the cargo; but, if sustained on board, arose from other causes, for which the vessel and owners are not responsible.
2. If the injury was occasioned by the dampness of the hold of the vessel necessarily and naturally incident to such a voyage, the vessel and owners are not responsible, it being one of the perils of navigation within the exception of the bill of lading.
The exception is: 'All and every the dangers and accidents of the seas and of navigation, of whatever nature and kind.'
All vessels are subject to dampness in the hold, and especially vessels laden at Liverpool, which is a damp and wet place. 'Liverpool is very damp.' 'Ships, with or without cargo, are always damp, more or less, especially in summer, on a voyage from Liverpool to Charleston.' 'The heat of the ocean and other causes do produce dampness,' &c.
3. That the thread was insecurely and insufficiently packed for so long and boisterous a voyage as this was. This is manifest from the frequent instances of injuries received by other thread, similarly put up; from the practice of other manufacturers to pack in tin cases, and from the adoption of that mode by Coates & Co., in consequence of the repeated instances of damages sustained on the voyage by thread packed in wooden boxes.
4. That the proof is insufficient to show that the thread was in good order at the time of shipment. In some of the boxes the spools in the centre were injured, while the layers above and around them were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blaine Const. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America
... ... claim asserted against an insurance company under a builder's all-risk property damage policy. The ... of Regents of University of Minnesota v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 517 N.W.2d 888, 892-93 ... Id. at 941; see also Clark v. Barnwell, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 272, 283, 13 ... Washburn & Williams Co., 105 Pa.Super. 43, 160 A. 455, 457 ... bugs in tobacco; could also be indoors); Thomas v. City of Somerset, 97 S.W. 420, 420 ... ...
-
United States v. Farr Sugar Corp.
... ... of New York City, on the brief), for appellants Farr Sugar Corporation and American Spirits Inc ... Saypol, U. S. Atty., Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, and Benjamin E. Haller, all of New York ... that the non-carrier may recover in part, under the rule of divided damages, from the also ... S. Nathaniel Bacon, owned by the United States, collided in ... 435, 444, 19 L.Ed. 772; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272, 280, 281, 13 L.Ed. 985. The courts ... The James Gray v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184, 194, 195, ... ...
-
THE SCHICKSHINNY
... ... Whatever doubt may have previously existed under the Harter Act 9 , or before its enactment, as to ... Thomas & John Brocklebank, 2 Cir., 40 F.2d 418, 419, ... Co. v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 2 Cir., 58 F.2d 175, 176, ... Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., supra; Clark et al. v. Barnwell et al., 12 How. 272, 53 U.S ... ...
-
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Ashland Oil Company-Thomas Petroleum Transit Division
... ... Struk, James R. Miller, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, ... carrier the limitation of liability granted under § 3 of the Harter Act, 46 U.S.C. § 192. 3 ... States, a pre-Harter Act decision, 6 is Clark v. Barnwell, 53 U.S. 272, 13 L.Ed. 985 (1851), in ... and neglect of the carrier.' " Vana Trading Co. v. SS "Mette Skou", 556 F.2d 100, 105 (2d ... ...