M.A. Quina Export Co. v. Seebold
| Decision Date | 17 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 3903. |
| Citation | 287 F. 626 |
| Parties | M. A. QUINA EXPORT CO. v. SEEBOLD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.
Libel in admiralty by the M. A. Quina Export Company against Theodoro Seebold for breach of a charter party. From a decree dismissing the libel (280 F. 147), libelant appeals. Affirmed.
James F. Glen, of Tampa, Fla., and Francis B. Carter, of Pensacola Fla. (Carter & Yonge, of Pensacola, Fla., on the brief), for appellant.
C. C Whitaker, W. F. Himes, H. L. Coachman, and Karl E. Whitaker all of Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.
This was a libel in personam claiming damages for the alleged breach of a charter party dated February 16, 1916, whereby the Maria Lorenza, a sailing vessel of 299 tons register, was chartered to the libelant, the appellant, for the carriage of a cargo of 'deals and/or boards at charterer's option' from a Gulf port, to be declared by the charterer, to 'any safe always afloat port in the United Kingdom, not east of Southampton, both ports included, as ordered on signing bills of lading. ' The charter party provided that should the vessel not be at the port of loading on or before June 15, 1916, the charterer would have the option of canceling the charter. Prior to January 24, 1917, Pensacola was designated as the loading port, and on that day the appellant, at the request of the shipowner, the appellee, extended the time for performance of the charter party to April 15, 1917. The breach alleged was that the appellee did not, pursuant to the charter party, cause the ship to proceed to Pensacola to load, but caused it to go to Tampa, where at the time the libel was filed in June, 1917, it was engaged in loading a cargo of lumber and automobiles for Spain on the appellee's account. The ship sailed under the flag of Uruguay, and the appellee was a citizen of Spain. The charter party contained the following:
'The act of God, restraints of princes and rulers, the king's enemies, fire, floods, frost, droughts, strikes, combinations, or any extraordinary occurrence beyond control of either party, and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers and navigation of what nature and kind soever during the said voyage, always mutually excepted, including negligence clause as attached.'
The following is the clause attached:
'The act of God, perils of the sea, fire, barratry of the master or crew, enemies, pirates, thieves, arrests and restraints of princes. rules and people. collisions, stranding and other accidents of navigation excepted, even when occasioned by negligence, default or error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, or other servants of the shipowners.'
The answer to the libel admitted the conduct which the libel charged was a breach of the charter party, and set up as a defense that appellee was excused from performance of the charter party by the action of the German government in instituting on February 1, 1917, pursuant to its proclamation issued January 31, 1917, and thereafter carrying on, unrestricted submarine warfare, involving the sinking without warning of any vessel, belligerent or neutral, found in a described zone of the sea which included the waters surrounding the British Isles. By stipulation the parties admitted facts, including the following:
The appellee and the master of the vessel had knowledge of the above-mentioned proclamation at the time of its issuance. Immediately following that proclamation the German government began and continued until long after April 15, 1917, to execute its declared purpose set forth in that proclamation and in so doing employed a large number of its submarines, operating in the zone described therein which surrounded the British Isles, and, without warning, sunk and destroyed vessels, including those of neutral nations, with their cargoes and crews, undertaking to pass...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Takahashi v. Pepper Tank & Contracting Company
... ... The contract ... between the parties contained a stamp reading "export ... purchase for shipment to Japan." Defendants improperly ... informed ... contingency released him from the contract. See M. A ... Quina Export Co. v. Seebold, 287 F. 626; ... Lawrenceburg Rolling Mills v ... ...
-
THE WILDWOOD, 10070.
...agreement to carry was made, was held justified. Atlantic Fruit Co. v. Solari, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1916, 238 F. 217, 224; M. A. Quina Export Co. v. Seebold, 5 Cir., 1923, 287 F. 626; Israel v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 1925, 6 F.2d 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000; Compagnie de Trefileries v. F. & C. ......
-
Israel v. Luckenbach SS Co.
...the parties excused from performing it. Texas Co. v. Hogarth Shipping, 256 U. S. 619, 41 S. Ct. 612, 65 L. Ed. 1123; Quina Export Co. v. Seebold (C. C. A.) 287 F. 626; Allanwilde Corporation v. Vacuum Oil Co., 248 U. S. 377, 39 S. Ct. 147, 63 L. Ed. 312, 3 A. L. R. 15. In the last case clea......
-
THE GEORGE J. GOULANDRIS
...It was swallowed up by the larger doctrine of frustration or implied exception used by the court. In the case of M. A. Quina Export Co. v. Seebold, 5 Cir., 287 F. 626, by a charter party entered into during the last war the vessel was chartered to carry a cargo of lumber from a Gulf port in......