Empresa Central Merc. v. Republic of US of Brazil
| Decision Date | 24 January 1957 |
| Citation | 1957 AMC 218,147 F. Supp. 778 |
| Parties | EMPRESA CENTRAL MERCANTIL DE REPRESENTACOES, LTDA., Libellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL, doing business under the name and style of Lloyd Brasileiro, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, F. Herbert Prem, New York City, of counsel, for libellant.
Purrington & McConnell, New York City, for respondent.
This is an action in admiralty against a carrier to recover for damage to libellant's cargo consisting of 22 skids of silicon steel sheets. The goods were shipped in November 1951, from New York to Rio de Janeiro on respondent's S.S. Loide Guatemala.
On April 1, 1955, Judge Clancy signed an interlocutory decree in favor of libellant, with costs and with interest on libellant's damages to run from December 2, 1951, the date of the arrival of the vessel at Rio de Janeiro. The matter was referred to a Special Commissioner to ascertain and compute the amount of libellant's damages and report the same to this Court. That report, dated November 30, 1956, is now before me. In substance, although the liability of the respondent was established, the Commissioner concluded that there was insufficient proof of the damages and that libellant could recover, at most, only nominal damages.
The libellant has excepted to the report and moves for an order requiring that the case be returned to the Commissioner with instructions to compute the damages. The respondent moves to confirm the Commissioner's report.
I think the libellant has substantiated its prayer for relief and that the Commissioner should compute the damages on the basis of the libellant's proof.
The basic premise on which this case rests is the wrongdoing of the respondent. The bill of lading issued by the respondent was false and misleading. It acknowledged receipt of the 22 skids of steel sheets on board its vessel in New York "in apparent good order and condition." This was done despite the fact that one month before, respondent had issued two dock receipts showing that the sheets were damaged. One dock receipt (for 14 skids) bears the notation, "Outside Containers Badly Rusted;" the other (for the remaining 8 skids) bears the notation, "Wrappers torn sheets badly rusted." The issuance of the "clean" bill of lading by the respondent enabled the seller of the goods (Ameximpo, Inc.) to secure payment of the sales price under a letter of credit established in New York City by libellant. One of the conditions in the letter of credit was that payment thereunder could be made only upon a clean bill of lading. While accommodating the seller with the "clean" bill of lading, the respondent was careful to protect itself by securing a letter of indemnity whereby the seller agreed to hold the respondent "free and harmless for any liability you may be called upon to reimburse the consignee with regard to any damage to this merchandise."1
There is no question that the libellant was the purchaser for value of the bill of lading, and a holder in due course without notice of the deception practiced upon it. Indeed, respondent's counsel, upon the trial before Judge Clancy, conceded the respondent's responsibility for issuing a deceptive bill of lading, saying:
Although the Commissioner's report is entirely consistent with all I have stated thus far, his conclusion is based upon the view that libellant's proof of the amount of damages was insufficient. I cannot agree.
The measure of damages applicable in this case is the difference betweeen the sound market value of the goods at destination and their damaged value at that point. Pioneer Import Corp. v. The Lafcomo, 2 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 654, 655; Sanib Corporation v. United Fruit Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1947, 74 F.Supp. 64, 67-68; The Norte, D.C.E.D. Pa.1947, 69 F.Supp. 881, 888; The George E. Pickett, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1948, 77 F.Supp. 988; The S.S. H. Culbreath, 1952 2 A.M.C. 1170, 1177 (S.D.N.Y. 1951). The libellant offered credible and competent proof of the sound market value through its witness Ramos and its invoice data. See Waterman S. S. Corp. v. United States S. R. & M. Co., 5 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 687, 694. The damaged value of the goods at destination was sufficiently proved by libellant's witnesses. The Commissioner has sustained respondent's contention that this should have been proven by its sales price upon a fair sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C. ITOH & CO., ETC. v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd.
...525 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 974, 96 S.Ct. 2174, 48 L.Ed.2d 798 (1976); Empresa Central Mer. De R. v. Republic of U. S. of Brazil, 147 F.Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y.1957), aff'd, 257 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 20 See Compagnie De Navigation Fraissinet & Cyprien Fabre, S. A. v. Mondial......
-
Santiago v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
...Cir. 1963); Daido Line v. Thomas P. González Corp., 299 F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1962); Empresa Central Mercantil de Representaciones Ltda. v. Rep. of the United States of Brazil, 147 F. Supp. 778 (SDNY1957), aff'd 257 F.2d 747 (2nd Cir. Whether the basis for market value set in a particular case......
-
Interstate Steel Corporation v. SS" Crystal Gem"
...Trinity, supra; Konfort, S.A. v. The S.S. Santo Cerro, supra, 190 F.Supp. at 5-6; Empress Central Mercantil De Representacoes, Ltd. v. Republic of United States of Brazil, 147 F.Supp. 778, 780 (S.D.N.Y. 1957), aff'd, 257 F.2d 747 (2d Cir. 1958); Standard Brands, Inc. v. The Radja, supra, 11......
-
Standard Commercial Tobacco Co., Inc. v. M/V RECIFE
...at destination and their value as damaged. W. Tetley, Marine Cargo Claims, at 323, (3d ed. 1988), citing Empresa Central Mercantil v. Brasileiro, 147 F.Supp. 778, 780 (S.D.N.Y. 1957), aff'd, 257 F.2d 747 (2d Cir.1958). The primary object in awarding damages is to indemnify the plaintiff for......