Norwich Company v. Wright

Citation80 U.S. 104,20 L.Ed. 585,13 Wall. 104
PartiesNORWICH COMPANY v. WRIGHT
Decision Date01 December 1871
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut; the case being this:

On the 3d of March, 1851, Congress passed an act1 as follows the sections in brackets, i. e., 2d and 5th sections, not being specially important in this case, and inserted only to give a more full view of the act:

'SEC. 1. No owner or owners of any ship or vessel shall be subject or liable to answer for or make good to any one or more person or persons, any loss or damage which may happen to any goods or merchandise whatsoever, which shall be shipped, taken in, or put on board any such ship or vessel, by reason or by means of any fire happening to or on board the said ship or vessel, unless such fire is caused by the design or neglect of such owner or owners: Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall prevent the parties from making such contract as they please, extending or limiting the liability of ship-owners.

['SEC. 2. If any shipper or shippers of platina, gold, gold dust, silver, bullion, or other precious metals, coins, jewelry, bills of any bank or public body, diamonds or other precious stones, shall lade the same on board of any ship or vessel, without, at the time of such lading, giving to the master, agent, owner or owners of the ship or vessel receiving the same, a note in writing of the true character and value thereof, and have the same entered on the bill of lading therefor, the master and owner or owners of the said vessel shall not be liable, as carriers thereof, in any form or manner. Nor shall any such master or owners be liable for any such valuable goods beyond the value and according to the character thereof so notified and entered.]

'SEC. 3. The liability of the owner or owners of any ship or vessel, for any embezzlement, loss or destruction, by the master, officers, mariners, passengers, or any other person or persons, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such ship or vessel, or for any loss, damage or injury by collision, or for any act, matter or thing, loss, damage or forfeiture, done, occasioned or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner or owners respectively, in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending.

'SEC. 4. If any such embezzlement, loss, or destruction shall be suffered by several freighters or owners of goods, wares, or merchandise, or any property whatever, on the same voyage, and the whole value of the ship or vessel, and her freight for the voyage, shall not be sufficient to make compensation to each of them, they shall receive compensation from the owner or owners of the ship or vessel, in proportion to their respective losses; and for that purpose the said freighters and owners of the property, and the owner or owners of the ship or vessel, or any of them, may take the appropriate proceedings in any court, for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which the owner or owners of the ship or vessel may be liable amongst the parties entitled thereto. And it shall be deemed a sufficient compliance with the requirements of this act, on the part of such owner or owners, if he or they shall transfer his or their interest in such vessel and freight, for the benefit of such claimants, to a trustee, to be appointed by any court of competent jurisdiction, to act as such trustee for the person or persons who may prove to be legally entitled thereto, from and after which transfer all claims and proceedings against the owner or owners shall cease.

['SEC. 5. The charterer or charterers of any ship or vessel, in case he or they shall man, victual, and navigate such vessel at his or their own expense, or by his or their own procurement, shall be deemed the owner or owners of such vessel within the meaning of this act; and such ship or vessel, when so chartered, shall be liable in the same manner as if navigated by the owner or owners thereof.]

'SEC. 6. Nothing in the preceding sections shall be construed to take away or affect the remedy to which any party may be entitled, against the master, officers, or mariners, for or on account of any embezzlement, injury, loss or destruction of goods, wares, merchandise, or other property, put on board any ship or vessel, or on account of any negligence, fraud or other malversation of such master, officers, or mariners, respectively; nor shall anything herein contained lessen or take away any responsibility to which any master or mariner of any ship of vessel may now by law be liable, notwithstanding such master or mariner may be an owner or part owner of the ship or vessel.'

This statute being in force, the schooner Van Vliet, on the night of 18th of April, 1866, making three or four knots an hour, and the steamer City of Norwich making twelve—the schooner's course being nearly at right angles to that of the steamer collided in Long Island Sound. The schooner sank, and both she and her cargo were lost. The steamer was greatly damaged by the blow, and, taking fire, sank also. Her cargo was lost, but she herself was subsequently raised and repaired at great expense.

Hereupon the owners of the schooner filed a libel in personam in the District Court for the District of Connecticut against the owners of the steamer. The owners of the steamer, by way of defence, stating that the steamer had on board 'a large and valuable freight belonging to various parties, much larger in value than the whole amount of the interest of the defendants in the said steamer and of her freight then pending,' and that the whole of it was lost, set up that they were not in fault; that the night was dark; that the schooner had no lights; that she was seen first by the head of her sails being lighted up by the steamer's lights.

These matters set up, however, were not proved.

On the contrary, although several witnesses who saw the light of the schooner after the collision, testified that the green or starboard light was dim, it was clearly proved that the light was there; and there was very strong evidence to show that it was burning brightly at the time of the collision, having been specially examined both before and after it. It appeared also that the officers of another steamer, the Electra, three-quarters of a mile in the rear of the City of Norwich and directly in her track, had seen the schooner a full mile off, and some time before the occurrence happened; they seeing her, as the pilot of the Electra testified, one point on their port-bow when the City of Norwich was dead ahead. This witness stated that the schooner was a mile off from the Electra when he saw her, and that this was two minutes before the collision; that the City of Norwich blew her whistle immediately after the collision; and that he discovered the schooner two or three minutes before he heard the sound.

The District Court, after interlocutory decree in favor of the libellants, and a reference to a master, and a report, decreed for the libellants, $19,975 for the schooner and $1921 for her cargo, with interest from the date of collision. Before the decree was passed, the respondents filed a petition wherein they alleged that proceedings in rem had been commenced in behalf of said parties against the steamer in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York for the recovery of damages for the loss of the said cargo. They therefore prayed that they might be permitted to show by proper evidence the whole amount of damages sustained by all of said parties, including the libellants, and the value of the steamer and her freight then pending; and that the decree of the court might be so framed as to give the libellants such part or proportion of the amount of damages sustained by them as the value of steamer and freight bore to the whole amount of damages sustained by all parties by the collision. In reference to this last defence the libellants insisted:

1. That the act does not embrace injuries to other vessels by collision, but only injuries to, or loss of, cargo on board the offending vessel; and

2. That if it did embrace injuries by collision, the District Court, in that proceeding, had no power to give the respondents the relief which they sought.

The District Court held that cases of collision were within the act, but deemed the jurisdiction of that court insufficient to give relief. On appeal the Circuit Court held that cases of collision were not within the act. Hereupon the libellants appealed to this court. The appeal brought up all the questions in the cause.

Messrs. R. H. Huntley and C. R. Ingersoll, in support of the ruling below:

The act of 1851 does not apply in any of its sections to a loss that may happen to any other ship or vessel (than the owner's vessel), or to any goods, wares, or merchandise or other thing being on board of any other ship or vessel.

The words 'loss, damage, or injury by collision,' in the 3d section, are to be construed by the context, and relate only to the property to which the other branches of the section relate, that is, property 'shipped, or put on board such ship or vessel.'

The circumstances which led to the passage of the act were notorious. The packet ship Henry Clay, a large, costly, and nearly new ship, lying at the wharf in the port of New York, having nearly completed her lading and being bound for Europe, took fire from some cause and was burned, with a cargo already laden amounting in value to perhaps half a million of dollars. Her owners, being losers to a very large amount by the burning of the ship, were proceeded against by owners of cargo to compel payment to them of its value. It was strenuously insisted, by way of defence, that even without any such statutes as exist in England, the owners could not be charged upon the usual rule of liability of common carriers at common law. No...

To continue reading

Request your trial
186 cases
  • Puamier v. BARGE BT 1793
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 20 Noviembre 1974
    ...than the value of the ship and the freight then pending. The value of the ship is its value after the accident, Norwich v. Wright, 80 U.S. 104, 13 Wall. 104, 20 L.Ed. 585 (1871), which in the case before us is nothing. Certain provisions are made to guarantee that some money will be made av......
  • Joyce v. Joyce
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 17 Septiembre 1992
    ...to this concern by enacting the Limitation of Shipowner's Liability Act. 4 As the Supreme Court stated in Norwich Co. v. Wright, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 104, 121, 20 L.Ed. 585 (1871), the purpose of the Act was "to encourage ship-building and to induce capitalists to invest money in this branch ......
  • The Thomas Barlum the John Barlum Detroit Trust Co v. Barlum Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 5 Noviembre 1934
    ...the ship itself, or her freight then pending, in cases of damage occasioned without the owner's privity or knowledge (Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 20 L.Ed. 585; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 273 U.S. 207, 214, 47 S.Ct. 357, 71 L.Ed. 612); the extension, ......
  • Petition of Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 30 Septiembre 1921
    ... ... October 24, 1918, the Princess Sophia, owned by the Canadian ... Pacific Railway Company, stranded on Vanderbilt reef, in Lynn ... Canal, Alaska, and during the night of October 25th the ... England and the continent of Europe.' ... Mr ... Justice Bradley, in The Norwich v. Wright, 13 Wall ... 104, 20 L.Ed. 585, said: ... 'The ... great object of the law ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Resolved: Is 46 U.S.C. [section] 30501(a) a Jurisdictional Statute of Limitations or a Mandatory Claims Processing Rule?
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 21 No. 3, September 2022
    • 22 Septiembre 2022
    ...added). (15) Id. (citing Dig. 4.9.7.5) (emphasis added). (16) 20 F. Cas. at 376; See also The Norwich and New York Trans. Co. v. Wright, 80 U.S. 104 (1872); 1998 AMC 2061, 2067 (citing H. Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, liv. 2, cap. 11, [section] (17) Esta Later Charters, Inc. v. Ignacio, ......
  • MDL consolidation of aviation disaster cases before and after Lexecon.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 67 No. 2, April 2000
    • 1 Abril 2000
    ...Place v. Norwich & New York Transp. Co., 118 U.S. 468 (1886); Steam Ship Co. v. Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578 (1883); Norwich Co. v. Wright, 80 U.S. 104 (1871), and the restriction of wrongful death statutes to state citizens, see, e.g., Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142 ......
  • The Continued Vitality of the Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act of 1851.
    • United States
    • Loyola Maritime Law Journal Vol. 21 No. 3, September 2022
    • 22 Septiembre 2022
    ...(1) 9 Stat. 635; 46 U.S.C. [section] 186 (corresponding to 46 U.S.C. [section] 30505-30510 (current through P.L. 117-102)). (2) 80 U.S. 104 (3) Gilmore Grant & Charles Black, The Law of Admiralty 823 (Foundation Press, 2d ed. 1975). (4) Charles L. Black Jr., 85, Constitutional Law Exper......

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