Anchor Line v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 09 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 58.,58. |
| Citation | 9 F.2d 543 |
| Parties | ANCHOR LINE (HENDERSON BROS.), Limited, v. JACKSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Lord, Day & Lord, of New York City (Franklin Grady, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Louis Boehm, of New York City (Samuel Zeiger, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
In The Persiana, 185 F. 396, 107 C. C. A. 416, we held that a notation of damage upon the ship's receipt signed by the consignee was not enough to satisfy a clause which read that the ship should not be liable "for any damages to any goods, notice of which is not given before the removal of the goods." That was a far stronger case for the consignee than that at bar, because the bill of lading did not require, as here, that a claim should be made, but only notice of the damages themselves. The San Guglielmo, 249 F. 588, 161 C. C. A. 514, was very nearly on all fours. There the bill of lading read that the ship should not be liable "for any claim, however arising, of which notice is not given before removal." We held insufficient under that clause evidence that the consignees had called the captain's and dock superintendent's attention to the fact that the goods were damaged. In The St. Hubert, 107 F. 727, 46 C. C. A. 603 (C. C. A. 3), the drayman had the damage noted on the receipt which he gave, but it was held insufficient under a clause like that at bar. The Westminster, 127 F. 680, 62 C. C. A. 406 (C. C. A. 3), is to be distinguished, in that while the damage was apparent no notice of it was given. Under such circumstances there was, of course, no possibility of spelling out a claim for damages. The upshot of these cases is that notice that the goods have been damaged is not notice of a claim for recoupment. The result is perhaps a narrow interpretation, and has not been established in this circuit without strong opposition. Its existence is, however, unquestioned, and it seems to us undesirable by nice distinctions to invite perpetual litigation in its application. There can, indeed, be no doubt that it is one thing to advise a ship of the fact that she has discharged damaged goods and another that you mean to hold her for the loss. The two may shade into each other, but they are quite distinct. We may concede that notice of damage ordinarily presupposes that the consignee is contemplating a claim, but it is not equivalent even to an assertion that he will make one in the future; certainly it is not a claim in præsenti. He may conclude that he has no rights against the ship under the bill of lading, or that, if he has, it is not worth his while to press them. A protest is not a claim.
In the case at bar the plaintiff did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groban v. SS PEGU
...has shown nothing to indicate that any such limitation as it suggests could be reasonably imposed. As stated in Anchor Line v. Jackson, 9 F.2d 543, 545 (2d Cir. 1925), "the phrase `invoice value' means the amounts written into the invoices taken as of the time of shipment and it means nothi......
-
American Nat. Fire Ins. v. Yellow Freight Systems
...I hold that libelant's damages should be the invoice value of the damaged goods plus the freight paid thereon"); Anchor Line v. Jackson, 9 F.2d 543, 545 (2d Cir.1925) (Judge Learned Hand noting that normally when invoice price is the measure, prepaid freight "becomes part of the value" reco......
-
Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co.
...* * in accordance with the foregoing provisions, no carrier hereunder shall be liable, and such claims will not be paid.'2 Anchor Line v. Jackson, 2 Cir., 9 F.2d 543; Central Wholesale Co. v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co., 366 Mich. 138, 114 N.W.2d 221; B. A. Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania R. ......
-
Johnson & Dealaman, Inc. v. Wm. F. Hegarty, Inc.
...v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., above, 88 N.J.L., at pages 245, 246, 96 A. 582; and cf. Annotation, 135 A.L.R. 611, 615 (1941). As was said in Anchor Line, notice of damage is not notice of claim; although a claim ordinarily follows upon a notice of damage, the shipper or consignee may not press ......