C. TENNANT SONS & COMPANY v. Norddeutscher Lloyd

Decision Date09 August 1963
Docket NumberNo. 5687.,5687.
Citation220 F. Supp. 448
PartiesC. TENNANT SONS & COMPANY v. NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD and the S/S KASSEL, her engines, tackle, apparel, furniture, etc., and John I. Hay Company, and the BARGE JIHCO-308.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

Thomas W. Thorne, Jr., New Orleans, La., for libelant.

James G. Burke, Jr., New Orleans, La., for respondent.

FRANK B. ELLIS, District Judge.

Libelant contracted with respondents Norddeutscher Lloyd and the S/S KASSEL for the carriage of goods from London to, as indicated on the bill of lading, "direct overside discharge and stowage into barge in New Orleans." The vessel departed London on January 17, 1962 and arrived in the port of New Orleans on February 2, 1962. The cargo was discharged onto the Barge JIHCO # 308 for transportation upriver. The JIHCO # 308 arrived in Chicago on March 6, 1962, and delivered the goods (steel pipe) in a damaged condition.

Libelant initiated this proceeding on February 20, 1963, for the recovery of $1,005.12, the estimated value of the damage sustained. Respondent Norddeutscher Lloyd moves this court to dismiss the libel as to itself and the S/S KASSEL, in that the action is timebarred by the limitation provision in § 3(6) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1303(6), the pertinent language of which reads as follows:

"In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. * * *."

Respondent Norddeutscher Lloyd further asserts that "The term `carriage of goods' covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time when they are discharged from the ship," citing C.O.G.S.A., § 1(e), 46 U.S.C. § 1301 (e), and further fortifies its argument by quoting from Clause 4 of the bill of lading:

"* * * When the goods are discharged from the vessel, they shall be at their own risk and expense; such discharge shall constitute complete delivery and performance under this contract and the carrier shall be free from any further responsibility. * * *"

In conclusion respondent Norddeutscher Lloyd states that inasmuch as the S/S KASSEL arrived in New Orleans on February 2, 1962, and discharged the cargo of steel pipe either on February 2nd or 3rd, then the libel filed on February 20, 1963, is time-barred.

Libelant opposes the motion on grounds that § 3(6) of C.O.G.S.A., 46 U.S.C. § 1303(6), contemplates that the limitation period shall commence upon "delivery of the goods," and that discharge of the cargo in New Orleans into the JIHCO # 308 was not "delivery." "Delivery", libelant further contends, occurred on March 6, 1962, in Chicago, Illinois. Libelant concludes that the libel is not time-barred and that the motion to dismiss should be denied.

The issue then presents a problem of interpretation of what appears to be a conflict in C.O.G.S.A. and compels a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Servicios-Expoarma, C.A. v. Industrial Maritime Carriers, Inc., SERVICIOS-EXPOARM
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 25, 1998
    ...(or its agent). See, e.g., Cargill Ferrous Int'l v. M/V ELIKON, 857 F.Supp. 45, 47 (N.D.Ill.1994); C. Tennant Sons & Co. v. Norddeutscher Lloyd, 220 F.Supp. 448, 449 (E.D.La.1963). Other courts have held that delivery occurs only when the consignee has a reasonable opportunity to inspect th......
  • CARGILL FERROUS INTERN. v. M/V ELIKON, 92 C 7931.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 16, 1994
    ...Maru, 758 F.Supp. 1169, 1171 (S.D.Tex.1991), vacated on other grounds, 978 F.2d 920 (5th Cir.1992); C. Tennant Sons & Co. v. Norddeutscher Lloyd, 220 F.Supp. 448, 449 (E.D.La.1963). Cargill cites several cases in which "delivery," in particular circumstances, was held to be complete for pur......
  • O'SHATZ v. Bailey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 16, 1963
    ... ... See Champion Spark Plug Company v. Karchmar, 180 F.Supp. 727 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) quoting Martin ... ...
  • Mendes Junior Intern. Co. v. M/V SOKAI MARU
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • March 8, 1991
    ...delivery occurs when the goods leave the ship's slings, whether to the consignee or his authorized agent. C. Tennant Sons & Co. v. Norddeutscher Lloyd, 220 F.Supp. 448 (E.D.La.1963). According to AMC's argument, both lots having left the ship's unloading facilities on March 15, both lots we......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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