Louis-Dreyfus v. Paterson Steamships

• Decision Date: 25 October 1929
• Citation: 35 F.2d 353
• Parties: LOUIS-DREYFUS et al. v. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, Limited.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

35 F.2d 353 (1929)

LOUIS-DREYFUS et al. v. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, Limited.

District Court, W. D. New York.

October 25, 1929.

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City, and Burke & Desmond, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Henry N. Longley, of New York City, and Thomas C. Burke, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for libelants.

Holding, Duncan & Leckie, of Cleveland, Ohio (Frederick L. Leckie and Theodore C. Robinson, both of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for respondent.

ADLER, District Judge.

This case arises out of damage to a cargo of grain caused by the sinking of the steamer Advance on November 3, 1927, near the entrance to the Cornwall canal, St. Lawrence river. The libelant is a dealer in grain, and the Paterson Steamships, Limited, the respondent, operates ships on the Great Lakes. In August, 1927, the libelant, through Hall Shipping Company, arranged for the shipment of 306,000 bushels of wheat to be carried from Duluth, Minn., to Montreal, Canada. 241,000 bushels were loaded on the ship Canadoc, owned by the respondent, and 65,000 bushels were loaded on the ship Soodoc, owned by the respondent. Bills of lading were issued at Duluth, covering these shipments, and specifying that they were bound for "Montreal with trans-shipment at Port Colborne, Ontario." The ships carrying the grain proceeded to Port Colborne, where it was unloaded into elevators and reloaded on smaller ships to be carried through the Welland canal, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence canals to Montreal.

The ships in which the grain was originally loaded are too large to make the trip through the canals. When the cargoes were broken up at Port Colborne, it required six ships to take the grain the rest of the way down to Montreal. Four of these smaller ships belonged to Paterson Steamships, Limited, the respondent. They apparently reached Montreal safely and delivered the grain on them in good condition. Of the two smaller ships which did not belong to respondent, one of them, the Hanna, carried 15,583 bushels of grain, and that apparently reached Montreal safely and delivered its cargo in good condition. The remaining ship, the Advance, which did not belong to respondent, apparently struck some obstruction when approaching the Cornwall canal, a hole was stove in the side of the ship, it filled with water, and sank. It was raised and taken to drydock. All of the grain was damaged, and was subsequently disposed of.

The respondent states that its liability ceased on the delivery of the grain from its ships to the elevator at Port Colborne. It calls attention to the fact that the bills of lading provided for the transshipment at Port Colborne. There is also in evidence a letter from the Hall Shipping Company, the brokers, to the libelant confirming the charter from Duluth to Montreal with these words in parenthesis: "Ship's option direct or via Port Colborne, Ontario." And on the back of the letter of confirmation appears this language: "Grain chartered to Montreal is ship's option direct to Montreal or via Port McNicoll, Tiffin or Port Colborne, Ontario." What happened was that, when the ships got to Port Colborne, the agents or representatives of Hall Shipping Company took charge of the transfer of the grain to the smaller vessels. The shipments on the Hanna and the Advance, the two ships not owned by the respondent, were arranged for by these agents. It is the contention of the respondent that in making those arrangements for the shipment on the Advance the agents acted for and in behalf of libelant and not for the respondent, the Paterson Steamships, Limited, that Paterson Steamships' responsibility ceased when it discharged the cargoes at Port Colborne,...