THE HOG ISLAND
| Citation | 48 F.2d 101 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 238.,No. 237,237 |
| Parties | THE HOG ISLAND. SGOBEL & DAY v. EXPORT S. S. CORPORATION. CUNEO et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Finkler & McEntire, of New York City, for appellants.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City (L. DeGrove Potter and Michael F. Whalen, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
As the damage to these chestnuts was due to heat, decay, putrefaction, and sweat, it falls within the exceptions to the bills of lading, and the vessel is not liable unless it is proved that the heat, decay, putrefaction, and sweat was caused by its negligence. The Toyohashi Maru (D. C.) 13 F.(2d) 871; The Florinda (C. C. A.) 31 F.(2d) 262; The Bencleugh (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 49.
Whether the stowage was negligent or not and whether the holds in which the chestnuts were stowed were suitable for such cargo and equipped with adequate means of ventilation were questions of fact. Expert witnesses, well qualified to know, testified that the ventilation supplied was ample for such goods and that the stowage was not negligent. The evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding that these chestnuts were damaged, falls short of carrying the burden as to negligent stowage and leaves the proof of seaworthiness for the purpose of carrying these goods abundantly established. The lower court so found, and the record supports it.
There has been some suggestion that the sweating was caused by disease in the chestnuts and by wetting of the bags before they were laden on the ship. We do not undertake to determine the actual cause of the damage, but confine ourselves to the issue which goes only to the point of deciding whether, under the contract of carriage, the proof in these cases is sufficient to charge the appellee with liability for it.
Both decrees are affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Tobacco Co. v. The Katingo Hadjipatera
...which carried tobacco, she had but two ventilators per hold. This suffices. The Hog Island, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1930, 43 F.2d 243, affirmed 2 Cir., 1930, 48 F.2d 101. Libellants do not seriously maintain that her structural ventilation was inadequate safely to carry any tobacco. Their allegation of......
- Nelson Bros. Coal Co. v. Perryman-Burns Coal Co., 287.
-
Eppens, Smith Co. v. Silver Line, 419.
... ... Clark v. Barnwell, 1851, 53 U.S. 272, 12 How. 272, 13 L.Ed. 985; The Cherca, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1931, 52 F. 2d 646; The Tergestea, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1931, 54 F.2d 809; Thespis and Swinburne, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1931;1 The Hog Island, 2 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 101; The Josephine, 3 Cir., 1931, 49 F.2d 207; The Maryland, D.C.S. D.N.Y.1937, 19 F.Supp. 505 ... The record satisfactorily establishes the fact that the tea in question was stowed in the vessel's No. 1 'tween-decks stowage compartment, along with sundry ... ...