In re Pacific Mail S.S. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1904 |
| Docket Number | 1,035. |
| Citation | 130 F. 76 |
| Parties | In re PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William Denman, R. P. Henshall, Gavin McNab, Thomas & Gerstle, W. P Humphrey, R. H. Countryman, W. H. Willitt, Chickering & Gregory, R. H. Cross, Bien & Jackson, A. Morgenthal, Corget & Goodwin, Charles E. Snook, and Robert Johnson, for claimants.
Charles Page and Ward McAllister, for Pacific Mail S.S. Co.
William Denman, for Kate West et al.
Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judges.
The steamship City of Rio de Janeiro, whose home port was San Francisco, on entering the Bay of San Francisco on the 22d day of February, 1901, on one of her return trips from Hongkong and intermediate ports, struck a reef of rocks near the Golden Gate, and within 20 minutes sunk beneath the waters, carrying down a large number of her passengers and crew and all of her cargo. Shortly thereafter, to wit, March 19, 1901, the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, owner of the ship, filed in the court below its petition for limitation of liability, alleging therein that the sinking of the ship occurred by reason of the perils of for the privilege of contesting any liability for the losses that occurred. The court below directed a reference to its commissioner to ascertain and report the value of the ship and freight pending. Evidence was taken showing the amounts collected by the petitioner on the ship's outward voyage for passage money and freight and the amount received and agreed to be paid upon the return voyage. In respect to the question of freight pending it was shown that all goods lost had been shipped under bills of lading containing these provisions:
Based upon evidence introduced before the commissioner, that officer reported to the court findings to the effect that the petitioner was, and still is, the sole owner of the steamship, the value of which, in its wrecked condition, was $150; that the voyage which terminated in the wreck and loss of the ship began at Hongkong, China, on the 22d day of January, 1901; that the freight money collected at Hongkong and way ports for the voyage to San Francisco, and that which was to have been collected at the latter place, 'is earned and the freight pending in this cause,' and appraising the value of the ship and her freight pending as follows:
| Steamship City of Rio de Janeiro, and her tackle, apparel, machinery, and furniture .................................. | $ 150 00 |
| Freight and passage money pending ............................ | 24,827 93 |
| ---------- | |
| Total .................................................. | $24,977 93 |
The commissioner took no account of the freight or passenger money collected on the outward voyage of the ship.
To his report the claimant Sarah Guyon, administratrix of the estate of Henry Guyon, deceased, filed these exceptions:
'(I) Claimant excepts to the following finding of said report and appraisement: 'I do further find that the voyage which terminated in the wreck and loss of the aforesaid steamship at the entrance to San Francisco Harbor on the 22d day of February, 1901, began at Hongkong on the 22d of January, 1901,' on the grounds: (a) That there is no evidence before the commissioner to show that the said voyage began at Hongkong, China. (b) That the evidence conclusively established that the said voyage for which the freight was pending at the time of the said wreck began at San Francisco on or about December 14, 1900, and extended through the ports of Honolulu, Yokohama, Kobe, Nagasaki, Shanghai, to Hongkong, and return to San Francisco, touching at the same ports in the reverse order.
(II) Claimant excepts to the following finding: 'I do further find the freight and passage money pending for the aforesaid voyage to be the sum of $24,827.93,' on the grounds: (a) That the term 'aforesaid voyage' is ambiguous, and that it cannot be determined therefrom whether the said term applied to the voyage on which the City of Rio de Janeiro was wrecked or whether it refers to the portion of the voyage beginning at Hongkong January 22, 1901; claimant admitting the said sum to be the freight pending for the latter, but excepting to the said sum as a finding of the freight for the entire voyage. (b) That the evidence conclusively shows the freight pending for the voyage on which the City of Rio de Janeiro was wrecked to have been $55,412.95.
'(III) Claimant excepts to the following finding and appraisement: 'I do further appraise the value of the said steamship and her freight pending as follows:
| Steamship City of Rio de Janeiro, her tackle, and furniture ........................................ | $ 150 00 |
| Freight and passage money pending ................... | 24,827 93 |
| ---------- | |
| Total ......................................... | $24,997 93 |
-- On the grounds: (a) That the evidence conclusively shows that the venture in which claimant was interested was the sending of the City of Rio de Janeiro on a voyage from San Francisco to Asiatic ports and return to carry for hire passengers, freight, and mails, and that the freight pending for the portion of the voyage from San Francisco to Hongkong, amounting to $30,202.11, should be added to the $24,827.97 earned on the homeward trip of the voyage; making the total appraisement for the freight pending $55,040.04. (b) That the evidence shows conclusively that the value of the ship after the wreck was $500, and that this sum should be included in the said appraisement. (c) That the appraisement of the said vessel should be amended as follows:
| Freight pending for venture ... | $55,040 04 |
| Wreck $500.00; boats $150.00 ...... | 650 00 |
| ---------- | |
| Total .................... | $55,690 04 |
'Wherefore claimant prays that the said exceptions to the said report and appraisement be allowed, and that the said appraisement be recommitted to the said commissioner, with instructions to amend the same by adding thereto the item of $30,212.11 as for freight pending for the outward trip of the voyage on which the said steamship sank, and the item of $500 as for the value of the ship after the wreck.'
The petitioner filed the following:
All of the exceptions were overruled.
Various claims having been filed for damage by reason of loss of life and for loss of goods, baggage, etc., the cause came on for trial before the court upon its merits. The court found and held that the sinking of the ship was not due to any peril of the sea, but to the gross negligence of her master and pilot; after which the petitioner moved for a reduction of the bond so far as it represented freight pending, which motion was denied.
In and by its final decree the court below awarded damages to various of the claimants who were representatives of lost passengers, or who had themselves suffered injury, in amounts aggregating $35,125, but limited the liability of the petitioner for such damages to the sum of $24,977.93, with interest thereon from March 19, 1901, which sum, with interest, was directed to be paid into the registry of the court within 10 days, and to be apportioned among the various claimants to whom damages were so awarded after the payment out of such fund of all the costs of the proceeding except the cost incurred in the proceedings relating to the appraisement of the steamship and her freight pending, which the petitioner was directed to pay. The court held against the claims of Clara Barwick, and Ruth Miller as executrix of the estate of Sarah Wakefield, deceased.
From the decree various of the claimants, as also the petitioner have appealed. The ground of the petitioner's appeal is that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waterman Steamship Corporation v. Gay Cottons
...2 Cir., 1913, 204 F. 248; McGill v. Michigan S.S. Co. (THE PROGRESO), 9 Cir., 1906, 144 F. 788, 794-796; In re Pac. Mail S.S. Co. (THE RIO DE JANEIRO), 9 Cir., 1904, 130 F. 76; Parsons v. Empire Transp. Co., 9 Cir., 1901, 111 F. 202; The Republic, 2 Cir., 1894, 61 F. 109, 112-113; Hudgins v......
-
Petition of United States
...the duties it may be called upon to perform, including provision for any exigency which is likely to happen. In re Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 130 F. 76, 82, 69 L.R.A. 71 (9 Cir., 1904); Admiral Towing Company v. Woolen, 290 F.2d 641 (9 Cir., 1961). Such a failure may constitute both negligence......
-
State v. Irby, 4-3850.
...it involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness. State v. Hazzard, 139 Wash. 487, 247 P. 957, 47 A. L. R. 538; [In re Pacific Mail S. S. Co. (C. C. A.) 130 F. 76] 69 L. R. A. 71; [People v. Gilmore] 214 Ill. 569 [73 N. E. 737, 69 L. R. A. We think it self-evident that the issuance and accepta......
-
Armstrong v. Chambers & Kennedy
...that, had the crew been in fact unfit for their duty, Judge Betts would have been right. The Ninth Circuit in Re Pacific Mail S.S. Co., 130 F. 76, 69 L.R.A. 71, held the shipowner liable without limitation for the loss of passengers' lives— and for the loss of life of one member of the crew......