George Morewood, John Morewood, and Frederic Routh, Appellants v. Lorenzo Enequist, Owner of the Brig Gothland
| Decision Date | 01 December 1859 |
| Parties | GEORGE B. MOREWOOD, JOHN R. MOREWOOD, AND FREDERIC R. ROUTH, APPELLANTS, v. LORENZO N. ENEQUIST, OWNER OF THE BRIG GOTHLAND |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of New York.
It was a case in admiralty, arising under the following circumstances:
The brig Gothland, owned by Enequist, was chartered by Burt, Myrtle, & Co., of Batavia, to proceed to Padung, on the island of Sumatra, there to receive a quantity of coffee; to return thence to Batavia and complete her cargo, and deliver the same in New York, freight to be paid by the assignees of the bills of lading on delivery of the cargo.
It was admitted that the bills of lading were assigned for value to the appellants, composing the firm of G. B. Morewood & Company.
Enequist first filed a libel in rem against the cargo for the amount of the freight; but after some proceedings which it is not necessary to mention, this action was discontinued, and a libel in personam filed, which is the present case. The respondents alleged that, owing to the neglect of the carrier, the coffee, black pepper, and cassia, were damaged to the amount of $4,720.60, which they claimed as a deduction from the freight. The whole freight claimed was $9,160.56, with interest from April, 1853.
The District Court referred the case to a commissioner, who reported that the freight due in September, 1857, was $11,372.56, for which amount a decree was rendered, with costs.
The case, being carried to the Circuit Court, was there tried on the appeal from the District Court and on additional evidence taken by the respondents. The decree of the District Court was affirmed with costs, and the respondents appealed to this court.
It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Dodge and Mr. Johnson for the appellants, and by Mr. Donohue for the appellee.
The counsel for the appellants considered that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over an action on contract by a libel in personam in admiralty upon a contract of affreightment was still an open question, and therefore proceeded to argue it. The elaborate arguments against the jurisdiction filed by them, and for it by Mr. Donohue, are omitted by the reporter, in deference to the opinion of the court.
The ship Gothland, owned by Enequist, the libellant, was chartered by Burt, Myrtle, & Co., of Batavia, to proceed to Padung, on the island of Sumatra, there to receive a quantity of coffee; to return thence to Batavia and complete her cargo, and deliver the same in New York, freight to be paid by the assignees of the bills of lading on delivery of the cargo. The libellants' suit is in personam against the consignees or assignees of the cargo, for the amount of freight stipulated in the charter-party.
The only defence alleged in the answer is, that a portion of the merchandise delivered was not in good order, and had been greatly damaged by sweating, caused by want of proper ventilation on the voyage.
This defence was fully discussed and examined both in the District and Circuit Court, and a decree was entered for the libellant in both.
In the argument in this court, the counsel, without abandoning the original defence, have expended much learning and ingenuity in an attempt to demonstrate that a court of admiralty in this country, like those of England, has no jurisdiction over contracts of charter-party or affreightment. They do not seem to deny that these are maritime contracts, according to any correct definition of the terms, but rather require us to abandon our whole course of decision on this subject, and return to the fluctuating decisions of English common-law judges, which, it has been truly said, 'are founded on no uniform principle, and exhibit illiberal jealousy and narrow prejudice.'
The errors of those decisions have mostly been corrected by legislation in the country of their origin; they have never been adopted in this.
We do not feel disposed to be again drawn into the discussion of the arguments which counsel have reproduced on this subject. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Handler, Crim. No. K-74-0283.
... ... 383 F. Supp. 1268 George Beall, U. S. Atty., D. Md., James M. Kramon, ... ...
-
Stolt-Nielsen Sa v. Celanese Ag
...for the global shipment of chemical products — fit squarely within the definition of a maritime contract. See The Gothland, 64 U.S. (23 How.) 491, 493-94, 16 L.Ed. 516 (1859) ("[C]ontracts of affreightment are `maritime contracts' within the true meaning and construction of the Constitution......
- BP Exploration & Prod. Inc. v. Cashman Equip. Corp.
-
Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co, 112
... ... state had no power to compel the charter owner to proceed to arbitration. Matter of Red Cross ... Morewood v. Enequist, 23 How. 491, 16 L. Ed. 516. If that ... ...