Hohl v. Norddeutscher Lloyd

• Citation: 169 F. 990
• Parties: HOHL v. NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD.
• Decision Date: 21 April 1909
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

169 F. 990

HOHL v. NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD.

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

April 21, 1909

Syllabus by the Judge

Provision in bill of lading that carrier shall not be liable for more than $100 unless a greater value is expressed. Held, that the case was not distinguishable from the U.S. Lace Curtain Mills v. Oceanic S. Nav. Co. (D.C.) 145 F. 701, and the libellant is entitled to recover the value of the lost case without regard to limitation of liability to $100, as provided by the bill of lading.

Kneeland & Harison, for libellant.

Choate & Larocque, for respondent.

ADAMS District Judge.

This action was brought by Sebald M. Hohl to recover the value of a case of hosiery shipped at Bremen on the 15th of July 1907, on the respondent's steamer Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, for delivery to Goldman, Sachs & Co. in New York. A bill of lading was duly issued by the respondent and assigned to the libellant. This bill of lading was for ten cases of hosiery and provided, among other things:

'Not accountable for any Sum exceeding $100, per package, for goods of whatever description, nor for any amount in respect of Gold, Silver, Bullion, Specie, Jewelry, precious Stones or Metals, Paintings, Statuary, or any other valuable Goods of whatever description, unless the value of such be herein expressed and freight as may be agreed paid thereon.'

The steamer duly arrived and delivered nine cases of the ten. The alleged value of the missing case was $768.75, and it is to recover the difference between this sum and $100, which the respondent was willing to pay, that the action is pressed.

The question to be determined is purely one of law and the contentions of each side have been ably presented. The libellant urges that the determination of this court in United States Lace C.M. v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co (D.C.) 145 F. 701, is conclusive of this case, while the respondent argues that that case is not sound and, in any event, is distinguishable from the one now presented. It is to be regretted that the case has not been presented on appeal, as the question is an important one and should receive the consideration of the higher courts. In the absence, however, of a decision there on the question involved, the case must stand as the law of this court, and it remains to be ascertained whether the one now presented can be distinguished from it.

It is urged by the respondent that the case is different from the one cited in several respects:

(1) In the cited case, the bill of lading was prepared by the carrier, while in the one at bar it was prepared by the libellant's agents, as appears from the fact that the name of 'Louis Delius & Co. Forwarders and Bankers' is printed in large capital letters in the upper left hand margin and again the second line of the instrument, and the name of Goldman, Sachs & Co., who are bankers in this city is printed in the body of the contract as the consignees, showing a well established and uniform course of business on the part of the...