Gronstadt v. Withoff

• Decision Date: 30 July 1884
• Citation: 21 F. 253
• Parties: GRONSTADT v. WITHOFF and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

21 F. 253

GRONSTADT v. WITHOFF and others.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

July 30, 1884

Beebe Wilcox, & Hobbs, for libelant.

E. S Hubbe, for claimants.

WALLACE J.

The libelant, as master of the ship Petropolis, sues the consignees of part of her cargo for demurrage. The general cargo was shipped at Pillau under a charter-party between the vessel-owners and one Nordt, which provided, among other things, that the cargo might consist of empty petroleum barrels and rails to be carried to New York, and also provided that the cargo should be discharged in the same berth where the rails should be discharged. The respondents' barrels were shipped under a bill of lading which, among other things, provided that the barrels should be taken free from on board the vessel in four running days with demurrage at 10 pounds per day for longer detention, and contained a clause, 'all other conditions as per charter-party.'

The vessel arrived at the port of New York on May 21, 1880, and upon the request of the owner of the iron rails, which was the major part of the cargo, went to the Erie basin to discharge her cargo, and not being able to reach the wharf moored along-side another vessel. The barrels were above the rails. She remained practically in this position until the afternoon of May 31st, waiting to reach the wharf. The respondents having been notified on the 25th of her arrival, obtained an order for the delivery of the barrels on May 26th, from the vessel's agent, and being informed that the vessel was at the Erie basin, said they would send a lighter. The wharf-owner objected to receiving empty petroleum barrels on their wharf. On the 27th respondents notified the vessel's agent, if there was no lighter along-side the vessel, to put the barrels on the dock and give them notice. He replied he was willing to put the barrels on the dock if the respondents would arrange with the dock-owners to receive them there, and at the same time notified respondents he should hold them responsible for detention if they did not get the barrels out by the night of the 29th. Nothing more was done by the respondents until the morning of May 31st, when they sent a lighter, and the barrels were delivered on her. Four days were occupied in delivering to the lighter.

The bill of lading adopted all the conditions of the charter-party not inconsistent with its own terms. It has been frequently held that when it is sought to charge a consignee or indorsee of a bill of lading with liability upon the conditions of a charter-party, there must be a plain reference to the charter-party in the bill of lading, and a plain indication of an intention to incorporate them into the contract. Young v. Moeller, 5 El.& Bl. 755; Chappel v. Comfort, 31 L.J.C.P. 58; Gray v Carr, L.R. 6 Q.B. 522; Russell v. Niemann, 33 L.J.C.P. 358. Here the language of the charter-party is unambiguous and explicit, and it cannot be doubted is sufficient to adopt the conditions of the charter-party into the bill of lading. Smith v. Sieveking, 4 El.& Bl. 945; Wegener v. Smith, 24 L.J.C.P. 25; Davis v. Wallace, 3 Cliff. 130. By thus adopting the terms of the charter-party not inconsistent with those of the bill of lading, the consignees of the barrels agreed with the carrier that their part of the cargo...