Lake Steam Shipping Co. v. Bacon

Decision Date02 May 1904
Citation129 F. 819
PartiesLAKE STEAM SHIPPING CO., Limited v. BACON.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Convers & Kirlin, for libellant.

Wheeler Cortis & Haight, for respondent.

ADAMS District Judge.

This action was brought by the Lake Steam Shipping Company Limited, as owner of the steamship Avonmore, to recover from Daniel Bacon, the charterer, the hire of the steamship from April 16, 1903, to May 13 following, amounting, it is claimed to $2545.14. It is admitted by the libellant that the hire was properly suspended from April 11, 1903, at 7 A.M. until April 16, at 10:30 A.M., the period during which the vessel was stranded on Anegada Reef, Virgin Islands. The amount originally claimed was $2526. There was an error in the libel as to the time the vessel was removed from the reef, which the testimony shows was April 16th at 10:30 A.M. instead of 4 P.M. as first claimed. A correction of the error involved an additional claim of $19.14.

The steamship was in the service of the charterer, under a charter party dated January 28, 1903, which provided 'for one round trip to the West Indies and/or Mexico' and further:

'4. That the Charterers shall pay for the use and hire of the said vessel five hundred and eighty pounds (f580) British Sterling per calendar month, commencing on and from the day of her delivery, as aforesaid, and at and after the same rate for any part of a month; hire to continue until her delivery, with clean holds to the Owners (unless lost) at a port in the United States north of Hatteras at charterers option. * * *

6. Payment of the said hire to be made in cash half monthly in advance in New York. * * *

15. That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, breakdown of machinery, stranding, fire or damage preventing the working of the vessel for more than twenty-four running hours, the payment of the hire shall cease until she be again in an efficient state to resume her service, but should she, in consequence, put into any port, other than that to which she is bound, the Port Charges and Pilotages at such Port shall be borne by the Steamer's Owners, but should the vessel be driven into port, or to anchorage by stress of weather, or from any accident to the cargo, such detention or loss of time shall be at the Charterer's risk and expense.'

The defense of the respondent is stated in the answer as follows:

'Sixth. Further answering the libel herein, the respondent alleges that by reason of the stranding of the Steamship 'Avonmore' on the 11th day of April, 1903, she sustained very serious damage, and when finally floated, her bottom plating had been entirely perforated in several places to such an extent that No. 1 hold was practically flooded, and No. 2 hold, partly so. After said steamer was floated she made her way to St. Thomas where temporary repairs were made, but said repairs were not sufficient to render the vessel fit for service under the provisions of the charter party, and she was not in condition to load or discharge cargo without damage to same and was not in many ways tight, staunch, strong and fit. On account of this fact the Master deviated from the direct course to be as near as possible to land in case he was unable to control the leaks by the use of special pumps placed aboard at St. Thomas.

On said voyage to New York, the sugar cargo was still further damaged by reason of the leaky conditions of the steamer, and upon her arrival at that port all of the sugar stowed in No. 1 compartment had entirely melted; and the sugar stowed in No.2 compartment was seriously damaged. By reason of the damage sustained to cargo in the No. 1 and No.2 holds, the respondent was unable to collect a large part of the freight to which he would have otherwise been entitled. By reason of the damaged condition of the cargo, the discharge of the said steamer was also very seriously delayed at New York, and the respondent incurred extra expense. After said discharge the steamer was dry docked and repaired at the port of New York, said repairs, as respondent is informed and believes, having required an expenditure of $48,000 before the steamer could be again put in a fit condition for service. Respondent has paid hire in full to the 11th of April, 1903, at 7 A.M. when the steamer stranded, and has refused to pay all hire since that date under provisions of clause 15 of the charter.'

The testimony shows, that on a return trip of the steamer to New York from Port of Spain, Trinidad, for which voyage she was subchartered by the respondent herein to the Trinidad Shipping and Trading Company, Limited, which had loaded her with a cargo of sugar in bags, stowed in the five holds of the vessel, she sailed from Port of Spain on April 9th, 1903 at 5 P.M. On the 11th, at 7 A.M., she stranded on the reef stated, which is on the westerly side on the Anegada Passage, owing to the existence of an uncharted westerly current which set the vessel out of her course and led to the disaster. After efforts were made to float the vessel by the use of her own steam and anchors, it was found necessary to place a part of the cargo in small boats and to jettison a considerable quantity, by which means the vessel was removed from the reef on the 16th of April at 10:30 A.M. The bottom of the vessel was seriously injured by pounding on the reef and she began to leak shortly after she stranded. When she floated off the reef she had 19 feet of water in the fore-hold and about 3 feet in the No. 2 compartment. She then proceeded towards St. Thomas, 45 miles distant, for the purpose of having the damage examined and to get assistance. She arrived there on the 16th of April, about 5:45 P.M., and was then about 2 feet by the head, but had no more water in her than when she started after the stranding, it having been kept down by pumping. When the harbor master at St. Thomas learned that the vessel carried a foul bill of health, owing to small pox having existed at Port of Spain at the time of her departure from there, she was quarantined and all personal communication with the shore forbidden for eight days. At the expiration of such time,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 17 Febrero 1945
    ...and subsequent to the Crowe case. Hine et al. v. New York & Bermudez Co., D.C., 68 F. 920; The Fri, 2 Cir., 154 F. 333; Lake Steam Shipping Co. v. Bacon, D.C., 129 F. 819; The Royal Sceptre, D. C., 187 F. 224; The Rokeby, D.C., 202 F. 322; The Elizabeth Edwards, 2 Cir., 27 F.2d 747. While a......
  • The Yaye Maru
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 3 Mayo 1921
    ... ... 664; Ronalds v ... Leiter, 109 F. 905, 48 C.C.A. 708; Lake Steam ... Shipping Co. v. Bacon (D.C.) 129 F. 819; Munson Line ... v ... ...
  • Noyes v. Munson S.S. Line
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 11 Noviembre 1909
    ... ... the service, having water ballast, steam winches and ... donkey boiler with capacity to run all the steam winches ... paid here. See Lake Steam Shipping Co. v. Bacon ... (D.C.) 129 F. 819, affirmed 145 F. 1022, ... ...
  • Steamship Knutsford Co., Ltd. v. Barber & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 12 Noviembre 1919
    ...damage 'prevented the working of the vessel,' though possibly that is not wholly clear from the judgments delivered. In Lake Steam Shipping Co. v. Bacon (D.C.) 129 F. 819, affirmed in this court without opinion in 145 F. 1022, C.C.A. 476, the facts were substantially the same as in Hogarth ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT