Saxis Steamship Co. v. Multifacs International Traders, Inc., No. 329

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtLUMBARD, , and SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit
Citation375 F.2d 577
Decision Date30 March 1967
Docket NumberNo. 329,Docket 30938.
PartiesSAXIS STEAMSHIP CO., Owners of the SS WARM SPRINGS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. MULTIFACS INTERNATIONAL TRADERS, INC., Respondent-Appellant, v. AMERICAN RENAISSANCE LINES, INC., Petitioner-Intervenor-Appellant.

375 F.2d 577 (1967)

SAXIS STEAMSHIP CO., Owners of the SS WARM SPRINGS, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
MULTIFACS INTERNATIONAL TRADERS, INC., Respondent-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN RENAISSANCE LINES, INC., Petitioner-Intervenor-Appellant.

No. 329, Docket 30938.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued February 9, 1967.

Decided March 30, 1967.


375 F.2d 578
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
375 F.2d 579
Harry T. Constas, Jamaica, N. Y., for respondent-appellant

Francis J. O'Brien, New York City (Zock, Petrie, Sheneman & Reid, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellee.

James M. Leonard, New York City (McHugh & Leonard, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-intervenor-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

On September 20, 1965, the appellant chartered the vessel SS Warm Springs from its owner, the appellee Saxis Steamship Co., for the purpose of carrying cargoes to South Vietnam. The form of charter party was one generally known in the shipping business as the New York Produce Exchange Time Charter, which provided, inter alia:

"That should any dispute arise between the owners and charterers, the matter in dispute shall be referred to three persons at New York, one to be appointed by each of the parties hereto, and the third by the two so chosen; their decision or that of any two of them shall be final, and for the purpose of enforcing any award, this agreement may be made a rule of the Court. The Arbitrators shall be commercial men."

The owner and charterer agreed that the vessel would be delivered at the Island of Taiwan for its use over a period of from three to five months, at the option of the charterer, in carrying cargo between Taiwan and various ports of South Vietnam. The charter hire was $72,000 per month, plus war risk insurance and crew area bonus,1 which came to an additional cost to the charterer of approximately $3,500 per day.

Multifacs acting by its president, Mary Owens, wrote a letter on September 23, 1965 to American Renaissance Lines, Inc., an incipient corporation which actually did not come into being until it was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York five days later, which read as follows:

"Dear Sirs:
We confirm our agreement wherein Multifacs International Traders, Inc., assigns the Charter Party dated September 20, 1965 between Multifacs International Traders, Inc., as Charterers, and Owners Saxis Steamship Company, and Columbia Steamship Co., Inc., as agents for Owners to American Renaissance Lines, Inc., for the consideration
375 F.2d 580
of $1.00 and other considerations duly acknowledged between the parties.
This agreement is to take effect as of 12 Noon today."

The relationship between Multifacs and Renaissance, as far as the record is concerned, remains obscure. The trial judge commented that the failure to clarify it "signified complexities of arrangement that the parties elected not to disclose." Mary Owens appears to have been a shareholder and president of both corporations and one James Georgelis was vice-president of both. The bills of lading for cargo carried on the Warm Springs were issued in the name of Renaissance; and, although on some occasions the name of Multifacs was used in transactions relating to the Warm Springs, in general the name used was that of American Renaissance Lines, Inc.

The vessel was delivered by the owners at the port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, as agreed, on September 27, 1965, and the captain received his orders for the first voyage to Saigon, which was completed without incident. The events occurring during the second voyage, however, gave rise to the controversy with which the present case is concerned.

The Warm Springs was loaded for the second voyage at Taiwan with a cargo consisting of 2,600 tons of cement, consigned to the United States Overseas Mission at Danang, South Vietnam, 2,560 tons of general cargo for various consignees at Danang, and a general cargo of about 4,195 tons, consigned to various persons at Saigon. The vessel arrived at Danang on December 7, 1965, where cargo had to be lightered because there was not sufficient depth to the harbor to permit the Warm Springs to go alongside of the pier. Under the bills of lading, consignees were required to provide the lighters, which were available there for hire. The United States Overseas Mission accordingly hired and sent out lighters, by means of which the entire cargo of cement was discharged by December 21, 1965.

The consignees of general cargo, however, despite the fact that lighters were available, refused to send any out. They adopted this course because they were thus able to "warehouse" their goods, safe from the pilferage which then accompanied wartime conditions ashore. Moreover, the evidence before the arbitrators showed that the consignees were also enabled thereby to profit from the rapidly growing inflation in South Vietnam by holding the goods temporarily off the market.

This refusal to provide prompt lighterage was in contravention of the express terms of the bill of lading and made the shipper, consignee and the goods themselves liable for and subject to lien for all loss, expense and damage suffered by the carrier from the resulting detention of the ship and cargo. The delay was expensive for the carrier for it not only suffered the loss of the use of the ship for which it was paying charter hire but it was also required to pay the $3,500 for war risk insurance and crew bonus for each of the idle days.

In an attempt to prevent further such losses Renaissance, several times between January 10 and 28, 1966, ordered the captain of the vessel to depart from Danang and return to Taiwan. It was Renaissance's intention to transfer the Danang general cargo at Taiwan, to a shoal draft vessel which could dock at Danang and unload. Meanwhile, the Warm Springs would fill the vacated space with cement, consigned to the United States Overseas Mission at Saigon, to be delivered there together with the general cargo already on board. The captain under orders issued by the owner, which he represented, refused, for reasons irrelevant to this appeal, to obey the charterer's direction to deviate from the original voyage plan and kept the Warm Springs at Danang until February 2, 1966, when it finally discharged the last of the general cargo consigned to that port. On the same day it left Danang and proceeded, pursuant to the original plan of the voyage, to Saigon. The vessel was not fully...

To continue reading

Request your trial
139 practice notes
  • Holodnak v. AVCO CORP., AVCO-LYCOMING D., STRATFORD, CONN., Civ. A. No. B-15.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 15, 1974
    ...it demonstrates `evident partiality' on the part of the arbitrators." Saxis Steamship Co. v. Multifacs International Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577, 582 (2d Cir. 1967); Ballantine Books, Inc. v. Capital Distributing Co., 302 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1962). The transcript of the arbitration here d......
  • Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., Docket No. 01-9224.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 28, 2002
    ...the law or failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law." Saxis S.S. Co. v. Multifacs Int'l Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577, 582 (2d Cir.1967) (quotation marks omitted); see also Folkways Page 209 Publishers., Inc. v. Weiss, 989 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir.1993) ("I......
  • Botany Indus., Inc. v. NEW YORK JT. BD., AMAL. CLOTH. WKRS., No. 71 Civ. 2381 (DNE).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 12, 1974
    ...the law (e. g. Trafalgar Shipping Co. v. Int'l Milling Co., 401 F.2d 568 (2nd Cir. 1968); Saxis S.S. Co. v. Multifacs Int'l Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577 (2nd Cir. 1967)); or that the award violates public policy (e. g. Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers-Local 453 v. Otis Elevator Co., 3......
  • Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • August 6, 1992
    ...Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); Saxis Steamship Co. v. Multifacs International Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577 (2d Cir.1967). Judicial inquiry under the "manifest disregard" standard is therefore extremely limited. The governing law alleged t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
139 cases
  • Holodnak v. AVCO CORP., AVCO-LYCOMING D., STRATFORD, CONN., Civ. A. No. B-15.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 15, 1974
    ...see if it demonstrates `evident partiality' on the part of the arbitrators." Saxis Steamship Co. v. Multifacs International Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577, 582 (2d Cir. 1967); Ballantine Books, Inc. v. Capital Distributing Co., 302 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1962). The transcript of the arbitration here......
  • Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., Docket No. 01-9224.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 28, 2002
    ...in the law or failure on the part of the arbitrators to understand or apply the law." Saxis S.S. Co. v. Multifacs Int'l Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577, 582 (2d Cir.1967) (quotation marks omitted); see also Folkways Page 209 Publishers., Inc. v. Weiss, 989 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir.1993) ("In order......
  • Botany Indus., Inc. v. NEW YORK JT. BD., AMAL. CLOTH. WKRS., No. 71 Civ. 2381 (DNE).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 12, 1974
    ...the law (e. g. Trafalgar Shipping Co. v. Int'l Milling Co., 401 F.2d 568 (2nd Cir. 1968); Saxis S.S. Co. v. Multifacs Int'l Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577 (2nd Cir. 1967)); or that the award violates public policy (e. g. Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers-Local 453 v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F......
  • Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • August 6, 1992
    ...Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); Saxis Steamship Co. v. Multifacs International Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577 (2d Cir.1967). Judicial inquiry under the "manifest disregard" standard is therefore extremely limited. The governing law alleged to have been ig......
  • 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