Hurlbut v. Turnure
Decision Date | 26 May 1897 |
Citation | 81 F. 208 |
Parties | Hurlbut et al. v. TURNURE et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Convers & Kirlin, for libelants.
Edmund L. Bayliss and Walter F. Taylor, for respondents.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
The steamship Dunedin, upon her voyage from Cienfuegos, Cuba, to New York, in October, 1891, encountered very severe weather and was compelled to put into Newport News for coal. Before she reached that port she had burned some of her materials and some of her cargo for fuel. The libel was brought before the district court for the Southern district of New York upon a general average bond to recover the respondents' share of a general average assessment made upon the steamship and her cargo for the expenses thus thrown upon each, and for the port of refuge expenses. The bill of lading of the respondents' sugar contained a clause authorizing the vessel to call at any port or ports for any purpose.
The facts in regard to the voyage and the seaworthiness of the vessel are accurately stated by the district judge, as follows (76 F. 587):
We agree with the district judge in his further finding that 115 tons of coal was not a reasonable supply for the voyage, at that season of the year, from Cienfuegos to New York, but that 10 days' supply, or 120 tons, should have been taken in order to comply with the demands of reasonable prudence. The assessment which had been made charged the cargo with the value of all the ship's material and sugar which had been used as fuel, and with the port of refuge expenses. The respondents' share amounted to $473.01. The ship was 12 days in reaching Newport News, with 9 1/2 days' supply of coal, when she should have had 10 days' supply. The district judge refused to allow the expenses of going into Newport News, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
THE SAN GIUSEPPE
...and which put into Norfolk and stayed there for two months without any reason or excuse disclosed by the record. The case of Hurlbut v. Turnure, 2 Cir., 81 F. 208, affirming, D. C., 76 F. 587, is more nearly in point, but that was a case of general average. The vessel there had cleared from......
-
The Willdomino
... ... in making the ship seaworthy in all respects for the definite ... voyage upon which she sailed. Hurlbut v. Turnure ... (D.C.) 76 F. 587, 590-591, and as affirmed (C.C.A. 2) 81 ... F. 208, 26 C.C.A. 335. We think that notwithstanding the ... ...
-
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. UNITED STATES SHIP. BOARD EF CORP.
...line of American decisions. Ardan S. S. Co. v. Theband (D. C.) 35 F. 620; Hurlbut v. Turnure (D. C.) 76 F. 587, affirmed in (C. C. A. 2) 81 F. 208, 26 C. C. A. 335; Swift & Co. v. Furness, Withy & Co. (D. C.) 87 F. 345; The Blandon (D. C.) 287 F. 722; The Willdomino (C. C. A.) 300 F. In Aus......
-
THE CALEDONIER
...was unseaworthy, and, in so far as this unseaworthiness thus created contributed to the damages, a recovery may be had. Hurlbut v. Turnure (C. C. A.) 81 F. 208. The liberty clauses of the bill of lading, providing that the ship shall have liberty to deviate for the purpose of saving life or......