The Chadwicke
| Decision Date | 19 January 1887 |
| Citation | 29 F. 521 |
| Parties | THE CHADWICKE. v. THE CHADWICKE, etc. BOLCKOW, VAUGHAN & CO., Limited, |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Wilcox Adams & Macklin, for libelants.
Butler Stillman & Hubbard and W. Mynderse, for claimants.
The libel in this case was filed to recover damages against the steam-ship Chadwicke, for refusing, on arrival at New York to go to Perth Amboy to unload, as it is claimed she was bound to do, on request, under a stipulation of the charter.
On the eleventh of January, 1886, at Middlesbro' on Tees England, the vessel was chartered to the libelants to take on board 1,300 tons of spiegel iron, etc., and, 'being so loaded, therewith to proceed to the port of New York, Perth Amboy, Jersey City, Hoboken, or Brooklyn, and there deliver the same as ordered on arrival. ' The charter, however, provided that the vessel was 'to be addressed to the freighter's agent at the port of discharge; the captain to sign bills of lading as presented, without prejudice to this charter. ' Three days afterward, the cargo being put on board, a bill of lading, in the common printed form, was signed by the master, stating the steamer to be 'bound for New York,' and that the cargo was to be delivered 'at said port of New York, * * * unto C. L. Perkins, Esq., 30 Pine street, or his assigns, * * * and all other conditions as per charter-party;' the port and consignee's name being written in the usual blank spaces.
The steamer arrived at the quarantine station of the port of New York on the fifth of February, 1886, where a telegram from Mr. Perkins to the master dated January 30, 1886, was awaiting his arrival, and was received by the master, directing the steamer to Lehigh Valley Railroad dock, at Perth Amboy. Instead of going thither, he came up the bay, anchored off the Battery, reported to Mr. Perkins, the charterer's agent in New York, demanded to be unloaded there according to the terms of the bill of lading, and refused to go to Perth Amboy. After the charter had been signed, the libelants informed Mr. Perkins, by telegram, of the option contained in the charter. Thereupon the agent obtained an advance of 50 cents a ton upon a contract then pending, in consideration of a delivery of 1,000 tons of the iron at Perth Amboy, instead of 'ex ship' at New York. The option was worth to the libelants precisely $500.
The claimants contend that the bill of lading, in making the port of New York the place of delivery, determined the charterer's option; and that he had no right afterwards to direct the vessel elsewhere. Perth Amboy is a different port, and in a different collection district, from New York, although not much further from quarantine, where the master first received his notice, than are the ordinary discharging berths for such cargo in the port of New York. The consular invoices, sworn to by the libelants before the consul at Middlesbro', declared that the cargo was shipped for New York, and designed to be entered there. The Revised Statutes require that manifests shall be prepared at a distance of four leagues from the coast, stating the destination of the cargo, and the intended port of entry, and require the vessel, when arriving within the limits of the port, to make entry there; although there are provisions under which goods destined for different ports, or arriving for orders, may, after arrival at one port, proceed to another port for delivery of the cargo. Sections 2776, 2779, 2807, 2811, 2812. The master in preparing his manifest stated New York as the only port, and entered his vessel at the New York custom house.
The disposition of the cargo was evidently designed to be left to the charterer's agent in New York. All the other places of alternative delivery named in the charter are in the immediate vicinity of New York. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the shipper, in making out the consular invoices and the bill of lading for 'the port of New york,' actually intended either to waive his option as to the place of final delivery, or to charge himself with any irregularity in a delivery at Perth Amboy, should that be directed by his agent, even if he knew that Perth Amboy was a different collection district from New York, which he probably did not know. The charter-party provides that the cargo is to be delivered at any one of the five places named 'as ordered on arrival.' The very terms of the charter provide, therefore, for an option to be exercised at the end of the voyage;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West India Industries, Inc. v. Tradex, Tradex Petroleum Services
...978, 72 S.Ct. 1076, 96 L.Ed. 1370 (1952); United States v. Fisher Flouring Mills Co., 295 F. 691, 692-93 (W.D.Wash.1924); The Chadwicke, 29 F. 521, 524 (S.D.N.Y.1887); Armour & Co. v. Leopold Walford (London), Ltd., (1921) 3 K.B. at 477; W. Poor, American Law of Charter Parties and Ocean Bi......
-
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ETC. v. Marine Tankers Corp.
...been regarded as a mere receipt which does not supersede the charter provisions. See The Iona, 5 Cir., 1897, 80 F. 933; The Chadwicke, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1887, 29 F. 521; Gilmore and Black, op. cit. supra at 193-197; Poor, Charter Parties 66 (4th ed. Respondent accepts these general principles bu......
-
Toyo Kisen Kaisha v. WR Grace & Co.
...Ethel, 8 Fed. Cas. 798, 799, 800, No. 4,540; Two Hundred and Sixty Hogsheads of Molasses, 24 Fed. Cas. 445, 446, No. 14,296; The Chadwicke (D. C.) 29 F. 521, 524; Città Di Palermo (D. C.) 153 F. 378, 380; The Arctic Bird (D. C.) 109 F. 167, 172-173; The Mar Mediterraneo (D. C.) 1 F.(2d) 459......
-
The Fri
...Anderson, 5 C.P.Div. 171, 177; Rodocanachi Sons & Co. v. Milburn Bros., 6 Asp. 100, 103; Sewell v. Burdick, 10 App.Cas. 74, 105; The Chadwick (D.C.) 29 F. 521. as we must, that the contract of affreightment between the parties contained an explicit condition exempting the vessel from liabil......