Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. SOLLEVELD, ETC.
Decision Date | 18 January 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 2412.,2412. |
Citation | 11 F.2d 80 |
Parties | BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO. v. SOLLEVELD, VAN DER MEER & T. H. VAN HATTUM'S STOOMVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Harrington Putnam, of New York City (Hughes, Little & Seawell, of Norfolk, Va., and Leo J. Curren, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Charles R. Hickox, of New York City (Edward R. Baird, Jr., of Norfolk, Va., and Earl Appleman, of New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before ROSE and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a final decree in admiralty in personam in favor of the owner of the steamship Oostdijk against the Berwind-White Coal Mining Company, the charterer of said vessel, for demurrage amounting to $109,100.70, with interest and costs. The charter party was executed October 2, 1919. By its terms the vessel was chartered to carry a bulk cargo of coal of about 3,500 tons from Norfolk or Newport News to Buenos Aires or Montevideo, one port only, merchants option for a freight of $15 per ton. The vessel arrived at Newport News on October 27, 1919, and on October 28th, at 7 a. m., custom house formalities had been fulfilled; she was in all respects ready to load cargo; and notice of readiness was served on the coal company's agent. The vessel was not loaded, and the lay days provided in the charter expired at 4:36 p. m. October 30th. The coal company admits that the vessel went on demurrage on October 30th, but claims that demurrage was suspended at midnight on October 31st because of an order of the United States Fuel Administration, which, it contends, made illegal the export of coal contemplated by the charter until a permit was secured on January 10, 1920. The vessel completed loading, and sailed from Newport News January 13th. The coal company admits its liability for demurrage amounting to $7,492.11, being for the admitted detention before October 31st at Newport News, the time in January after receiving the license to load, and for a half day's delay at Buenos Aires; and the only question in the case is whether demurrage was suspended as a result of the order of the Fuel Administration. If it was not suspended, then it is conceded that the decree of the court below was correct.
The pertinent provisions of the charter party were as follows:
The facts with regard to the order of the Fuel Administration and the failure of the respondent to furnish the vessel with cargo of coal were as follows: On October 31, 1919, the Fuel Administrator of the United States government issued an order, effective at midnight October 31st, by which the Director General of Railroads was instructed to make diversion of coal in the possession of the railroads, and to provide for its distribution among the various consumers of coal according to a certain preference list. This order did not prohibit the export of coal, but made it necessary to obtain the consent of the fuel administration before coal could be moved over the railroads from the mines to the seaboard for export. It did not interfere in any way with coal not in the possession of the railroad companies. On December 27th an order was issued by the Fuel Administration establishing the embargo and permit system for handling coal at Norfolk and Newport News for export, and thereafter permits were required before coal could be loaded for export. At no time during this period was the shipping of coal from Newport News entirely prohibited. On the contrary, between October 31st and January 13th, vessels received at that port 198,515 tons, of which 131,888 tons were for foreign shipment, and almost one-fourth of which was loaded by respondent. During the same period 411,903 tons were loaded at Norfolk; 283,595 tons being for export and 18,181 tons being loaded by respondent.
At the time the Oostdijk reported for cargo on October 28th respondent had available for loading vessels at Newport News 10,725 tons of coal; on October 29th 4,675 tons; on October 30th 1,760 tons; and on October 31st 4,895 tons. If respondent had ordered a cargo of this coal loaded on the Oostdijk, it would have been loaded at any time before midnight of October 31st. But it appears that, instead of loading the Oostdijk, respondent loaded the coal into other vessels. On October 28th respondent had at Norfolk 10,990 tons of coal; October 29th 7,986...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cia. Estrella Blanca, Ltda. v. SS NICTRIC
...holidays, strikes, etc., is no longer of value. Poor, Charter Parties and Bills of Lading Sec. 49. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Solleveld, Etc., 11 F.2d 80, 82 (4th Cir. 1926). The charter provisions with reference to lay days and demurrage are clear. The exceptions with reference to Sa......
-
Wheeling Valley Coal Corporation v. Mead
...operations unprofitable. See Swift & Co. v. Columbia Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 4 Cir., 17 F.2d 46, 51 A.L.R. 983; Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Solleveld, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 80; Hellenic Transport S. S. Co. v. Archibald McNeill & Sons, D.C.Md., 273 F. 290, 296. As said by Judge Rose in the c......
-
Alcoa SS Co. v. Elmhurst Contracting Co.
...1893 was rendered impossible through vis major, i.e. bombardment of forts in the port by hostile ships of war. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Solleveld, etc., 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 80. Here demurrage as claimed was allowed, it appearing that the vessel was already in default, i.e., "on demurrag......