Calderon v. Atlas Steamship Co.

• Decision Date: 30 July 1895
• Citation: 69 F. 574
• Parties: CALDERON v. ATLAS STEAMSHIP CO., Limited.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

69 F. 574

CALDERON v. ATLAS STEAMSHIP CO., Limited.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 30, 1895

North Ward & Wagstaff, for appellant.

Wheeler & Cortis, for appellee.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

Libelant shipped 26 bales and 3 crates of duck uniforms for transportation by the steamship Ailsa from New York to Savanilla, thence by rail to Barranguilla, there to be delivered to the collector of customs, for which respondent issued its bill of lading. The goods were not landed at Savanilla, but were brought back to New York, and reshipped on the Alvo of the same line, which was lost at sea on the voyage, with all on board. The actual value of the goods lost was $5,413.18. Inasmuch as the respondent has not appealed the only question before this court is whether the district court erred in limiting the amount of libelant's recovery to $100 per package, under the bill of lading.

The bill contained on its face the following provision:

'And, finally, in accepting this bill of lading, the shipper, owner, and consignee of the goods and the holder of the bill of lading agree to be bound by all of its stipulations, exceptions, and conditions, as printed on the back thereof, whether written or printed, as fully as if they were all signed by such shipper, owner, consignee, or holder.'

On the back of the bill of lading, among numerous other clauses, was printed the following:

'(1) It is also mutually agreed that the carrier shall not be liable for gold, silver, bullion, specie, documents, jewelry, pictures, embroideries, works of art, silks, furs, china, porcelain, watches, clocks, or for goods of any description which are above the value of $100 per package, unless bills of lading are signed therefore with the value therein expressed, and a special agreement is made.'

Stipulations in bills of lading limiting the amount of the carrier's liability on each package carried to some stated sum, unless the value of the package is declared, and a special agreement made, have been repeatedly held valid, and such reasonable regulations for the conduct of the carrier's business so as to prevent imposition upon him, and to establish proper charges adequate to the extent of the risks to be undertaken, may be communicated to the shipper by notice printed upon the carrier's receipt. Hart v. Railroad Co., 112 U.S. 331, 5 Sup.Ct. 151; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U.S. 24; Potter v. The Majestic, 9 C.C.A. 161, 60 F. 624. It is contended that the clause above quoted is not such as these authorities sanction,-- namely, a reasonable regulation to protect the carrier from excessive loss where the hazardous character of the goods or the fact that they are valuable is not disclosed to him,-- but is rather a clause undertaking to relieve the carrier entirely from his common-law liability, and therefore not enforceable. The language used, 'shall not be liable for gold, * * * or for goods of any description which are above the value of $100 per package, unless,' etc., if literally construed, would no doubt import that the carrier shall be liable for nothing in the package if its value is over $100. But a more reasonable interpretation is that adopted by the district judge, namely, that the goods which are above $100 in the package may be excluded from consideration, and only those which amount to $100 be regarded. Being a clause in a written form of contract prepared by the carrier, and susceptible of two constructions, it is to be construed in favor of the other party, and, as thus construed, it applies only to such of the goods in each package as are in excess of the stipulated value, and is therefore within the authorities above cited. The decree of the district court is affirmed, with costs of this court to the appellee.

WALLACE Circuit Judge (dissenting).

I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. The 26 bales of goods in controversy were shipped by the libelant at New York for transportation to and delivery at Savanilla. The goods were not delivered by the steamship, but were forgotten and overlooked by those in charge of her while she was being unloaded at Savanilla. After she had left the port, the goods were discovered, and were taken back by the steamship to New York, and thence reshipped to their original destination on board another vessel, which foundered at sea, and the goods were lost. The corporation owning the steamship attempts to escape liability for the loss of the goods by a defense founded upon a condition in the bill of lading which reads as follows:

'In case any part of the goods cannot be found for delivery during the steamer's stay at the port of destination, they are to be forwarded by first opportunity, when found, at the company's expense; the steamer not to be held liable for any claim for delay or otherwise.'

The bill of lading contained also another condition, which reads as follows:

'This agreement is made with reference to, and subject to, the provisions of the U.S. Carrier's Act, passed February 13, 1893.'

By that act, commonly known as the 'Harter Act' (27 Stat 445), it is provided, among other things, that it shall not be lawful for the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise from or between port of the United states and foreign ports to insert in any bill of lading any clause or agreement whereby the vessel shall be relieved 'from liability for loss or damage arising from negligence, fault or failure in proper loading, stowage, custody, care or proper delivery' of any merchandise committed to its charge, and that any words of such import inserted in the bill of lading 'shall be null and void and of no effect. ' The court below correctly decided that the condition relied...