Sturgess v. Steamboat Columbus
Decision Date | 31 March 1856 |
Citation | 23 Mo. 230 |
Parties | STURGESS et al., Respondents, v. STEAMBOAT COLUMBUS, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where a bill of lading given by the master of a boat contains the following clause: “privilege of reshipping in case of low water”--this is a privilege reserved to the boat, and does not impose upon it an obligation to reship in case of detention on account of low water.
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
This was an action brought before a justice of the peace and appealed to the Law Commissioner's Court, where it was tried by the court sitting as a jury. The action was a complaint under the for breach of a contract of affreightment, alleged to consist in not having delivered to respondents twenty-five sacks of sweet potatoes, in good order and condition, at St. Louis, according to the terms of the bill of lading. The bill of lading contained the clause: “privilege of reshipping in case of low water.”
On the trial, the plaintiffs read said bill of lading. It was admitted that the potatoes, when received by the boat, were in good order and condition, and were rotten, in bad order and spoiled when delivered to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs rested, after proving the quantity and value of the potatoes. For the defence, it was proved that the boat left Natchez on the 23d or 24th of December, 1854, (the time of the shipment,) and arrived in St. Louis on the 9th of January, 1855; that she was detained eleven days at Cairo, by ice and low water, and made and completed her trip as soon as it was possible to do under the circumstances. It was also proved that the potatoes were properly stowed on the boat, in the proper place for stowing such articles, at that season of the year. This was all the testimony. Upon this testimony, the court declared the law to be as follows, viz: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marsh v. Richards
...used or of the workmanship employed, than the same work would have been worth had no such deviations occurred. (14 Mo. 385; 9 Mo. 218; 23 Mo. 230; 26 Mo. 102; 7 Pick. 184; Sedgw. on Dam. p. 220.) Plaintiff failed to prove the damage done by reason of the deviation of plaintiff from the spec......
- Downey v. Burke