Bull v. New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1909 |
| Docket Number | 40,41. |
| Citation | 167 F. 792 |
| Parties | BULL et al. v. NEW YORK & PORTO RICO S.S. CO. et al. NEW YORK & PORTO RICO S.S. CO. et al. v. BULL et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
J Parker Kirlin, for appellants.
Wallace Butler & Brown (Frederick M. Brown, of counsel), for appellee.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The general scheme and plan of the charter party was the same as that of the well-known 'government form' charter except that it contained no provision limiting the ropes falls, slings, and blocks, which the shipowners are bound to provide, to such as are appropriate for handling weights up to two tons, and did contain the following provision:
'(21) That the charterers shall not be responsible for losses incurred by reason of the default or neglect of the pilot, master, or crew in the navigation or management of the ship including damages by collision; but no claim to be made against owners for loss of cargo.' The boilers were loaded in New York from lighters, being lifted aboard by a special derrick lighter provided by charterers, all without use of any of the ship's appliances. Evidently anticipating that the ship's tackle would be insufficient for the task of handling these unusual weights, the charterers had the vessel call at San Juan, Porto Rico, for the sole purpose of taking on board extra blocks, falls, ropes, slings, and other tackle including a special boom. Although they had a stevedore there who was skilled in handling such heavy packages, they did not ship him, and when they arrived at destination undertook to conduct operations with the captain in charge, to whom they paid an extra gratuity for undertaking the job. No derrick having been shipped, the mast was used for that purpose, and efforts were made to reinforce it with extra preventer stays. Partly because rope instead of wire stays were used, partly because they were not scientifically placed to resist strains, whose directions varied as the boom swung outboard, the shackle to which the regular shrouds were attached elongated and carried away, and the mast buckled, broke, and fell overboard.
An examination of the record fails to satisfy us that there was any defect or unseaworthiness in the shackle or the mast. Without reinforcement they could not handle such an exceptional weight, increased greatly by its position at the end of the boom. But no one anticipated or expected that they could, as was evidenced by the efforts made to secure them before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horn v. Cia de Navegacion Fruco, SA
...we have no doubt that such determination is implicit in, and, indeed necessary to its findings. 16 Compare Bull v. New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co., 2nd Cir. 1909, 167 F. 792; Isbrandtsen Co. v. The George S. Boutwell, S.D.N.Y.1957, 1958 A.M.C. 351; Canadian Transport Co., Ltd. v. Count Line,......
-
Mistretta v. SS Ocean Evelyn
...of libelant's case is ordinarily not entertained unless the claimant also rests." Supporting this view are Bull et al. v. New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 167 F. 792 (2d Cir. 1909), cert. denied 214 U.S. 526, 29 Sup.Ct. 704, 53 L.Ed. 1068; The Persiana, 158 F. 912 (S.D.N. Y. 1907); and Mart......
-
Scottish Nav. Co. v. Munson SS Line
...that the mast collapsed because a bolt in the shoe of a derrick, which the charterers were bound to furnish, broke. In Bull v. New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 167 F. 792, the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit held that the mast was sufficient but collapsed because the preventer stay......
-
Munson S.S. Line v. Glasgow Nav. Co.
... ... Haight, ... Sandford & Smith, of New York City (J. W. Griffin, of New ... York City, of counsel), ... cargo owners. In Bull v. N.Y. & Porto Rico S.S. Co., ... 167 F. 792, 93 C.C.A ... ...