Hickman, Williams & Co. v. Murray Transp. Co.
Decision Date | 17 February 1940 |
Parties | HICKMAN, WILLIAMS & CO., Inc., v. MURRAY TRANSP. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Hill, Rivkins & Middleton, of New York City (Thomas H. Middleton, of New York City, of counsel), for libelant.
Macklin, Brown, Lenahan & Speer, of New York City (Leo F. Hanan, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The libel in this case was brought to recover the sum of $20,000 by reason of the failure to deliver a cargo of pig iron pursuant to the terms of a bill of lading.
On or about October 27, 1937, at Troy, New York, there was delivered to respondent and laden on the deck of the scow Murray Glen a cargo of pig iron to be transported by the respondent on the Murray Glen to Jersey City, to be delivered at the Central Railroad of New Jersey piers.
Subsequently, the said scow, so loaded, left Troy bound for Jersey City, and on the early morning of October 28, 1937, was preceeding down the Hudson River in tow of a tug or tugs of the Cornell Steamboat Company. While so proceeding down the Hudson River the scow Murray Glen careened and dumped her cargo in the Hudson River resulting in the loss thereof. At the time there was a light wind blowing. There was no heavy sea. The river was normal, nothing unusual about it, a little choppy, with two or three inch waves.
Libelant claims to be the owner of the cargo, and contends that by reason of the above facts libelant has suffered a loss for which it should be compensated by the respondents.
There first must be decided certain motions made at the end of the libelant's case. (Respondent put in no proof.)
Respondent moved to strike out the testimony of Samuel L. Shober Jr., and Joseph F. Bauer, with regard to the purchase, sale and ownership of the cargo of pig iron. Libelant consented, in so far as the testimony of the witness Bauer was concerned. Libelant depends on the testimony of the witness Shober to prove ownership of the pig iron.
At this time it might be well to set down the facts showing the relationship of the parties directly and indirectly involved herein, and the transactions between them as testified by Shober. He testified that he was the eastern manager of Hickman, Williams & Company, Inc. (libelant), and Vice-President of the Troy Furnace Corporation (consignor); that Hickman, Williams & Company owned the cargo; that at the time the cargo was lost in the river libelant had sold it to Lukens Steel Company, F. O. B., that company's plant at Coatesville, Pa.; that the terms of sale from Troy Furnace Corporation to Hickman, Williams & Company was a discount of one-half of one per cent in ten days, thirty days net; that the proceeding by which Troy Furnace Corporation gets paid for the iron was to invoice Hickman, Williams & Company, as that was the only way in which Hickman, Williams & Company could get the money for its goods; that Hickman, Williams & Company had paid Troy Furnace Corporation for the pig iron in November, 1937, after delivery on board the scow; and that no payment had been received from the ultimate purchaser, Lukens Steel Company.
The witness Shober also testified concerning the procedure in this transaction as follows:
The bill of lading reads as follows:
I have come to the conclusion that the testimony of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dowling v. Isthmian SS Corporation
...so as to present the true issues." Dexter v. Munroe, 7 Fed.Cas. pages 616, 617, No. 3863, 2 Spr. 39. Hickman, Williams & Co., Inc., v. Murray Transp. Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 820, 822; The Director, D.C., 26 F. 708, 711; Joice v. Canal-Boats, D.C., 32 F. 553, 62 Admiralty Rule 51 of the Distri......
-
Petition of New Jersey Barging Corporation
...2 Cir., 1926, 11 F.2d 466; The Spica, 2 Cir., 1926, 289 F. 436; The Rosalia, 2 Cir., 264 F. 285; Hickman, Williams & Co., Inc., v. Murray Transp. Co., D.C. S.D.N.Y.1940, 31 F.Supp. 820. In the Clarke case, supra, the Court said (Campbell, D. J., 59 F.2d at page "The decisions of the New Yor......
-
Luria Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp.
...of unseaworthiness. (The Jungshoved, 2 Cir., 290 F. 733, cert. den. 263 U.S. 707, 44 S.Ct. 35, 68 L.Ed. 517; Hickman, Williams & Co. v. Murray Trans. Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 820; United States Metals Refining v. Jacobus, 2 Cir., 205 F. 896; Petition of Peterson Lighterage and Towing Corp., D.......
-
Horizon Marketing v. Kingdom Intern. Ltd., 02-CV-6488(NGG).
...44 L.Ed. 929 (1900) ("the legal effect of a bill of lading [is] to vest ownership in the consignees"); Hickman, Williams & Co. v. Murray Transp. Co., 31 F.Supp. 820, 822 (S.D.N.Y.1940) (noting that the consignee listed on a bill of lading is the presumptive owner of the cargo); 49 U.S.C. § ......