THE PACIFIC SPRUCE
| Decision Date | 07 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 13245.,13245. |
| Citation | 1 F. Supp. 593,1932 AMC 1517 |
| Parties | THE PACIFIC SPRUCE (KRAUSS BROS. LUMBER CO., Intervener). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Anthony Savage, U. S. Atty., Jeffrey Heiman, Asst. U. S. Atty.
Hayden, Merritt, Summers & Bucey, for intervening libelant.
NETERER, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Has intervening libelant an action in tort, and, if so, "a lien for damages arising out of tort," and preferred to mortgage of the libelant, by section 953, title 46, USCA.
On delivery and stowage of cargo on shipboard, the ship became bound to the cargo and the cargo to the ship. The Pacific Hemlock (D. C.) 53 F.(2d) 492. The vessel, a common carrier, a common ship carrying cargo for hire, was bound to receive and carry tendered cargo for just compensation over its regular route, and to transport such cargo without unreasonable delay. Wabash R. Co. v. Pearce, 192 U. S. 179, 24 S. Ct. 231, 48 L. Ed. 397; Eastern Ry. Co. v. Littlefield, 237 U. S. 140, 35 S. Ct. 489, 59 L. Ed. 878. This duty was imposed by the common law, Bowman v. Chicago, etc., 125 U. S. 465, 474, 8 S. Ct. 689, 31 L. Ed. 700, and is imposed for the common good, irrespective of contract, Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (79 U. S.) 262, 20 L. Ed. 423.
Failure to discharge this duty, the shipper had election to sue the ship in tort or pursue his remedy on contract. Denman v. Ry. Co., 52 Neb. 140, 71 N. W. 967; Bartelt v. Ore. Ry. & Nav. Co., 57 Wash. 16, 23, 106 P. 487, 135 Am. St. Rep. 959.
The relation between the shipper and the ship is of a dual nature, a duty imposed by law and an obligation assumed by agreement; and, in either event, the conduct and acts of the parties are declared upon, and, in an action for failure to carry, or deviation from usual course, the relation on contract in a tort action is stated by way of inducement. Atl. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Laird, 164 U. S. 393, 17 S. Ct. 120, 41 L. Ed. 485. And an action in tort lies for neglect to carry pursuant to duty imposed by law, aside from contractual relation. The John G. Stevens, 170 U. S. 113, 18 S. Ct. 544, 42 L. Ed. 969. And the shipper has a right to rely upon the remedy given for violation of such imposed duty. York Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co., 70 U. S. (3 Wall.) 107, 18 L. Ed. 170. Breach of ship's duty is tortious neglect. New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 47 U. S. (6 How.) 344, 428, 12 L. Ed. 465. The shipper, for failure to carry cargo, may elect to sue in tort. Pac. Coast Steamship Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 94 F. 180 (9 C. C. A.). Damages to the shipper have been held recoverable for unreasonable delay, Dunham v. Boston & Maine Ry. Co., 70 Me. 164, 35 Am. Rep. 314, Sherman v. Hudson River Co., 64 N. Y. 254; and unnecessary delay of moving cargo is held deviation in James M. Constable v. National S. S. Co., 154 U. S. 51, 14 S. Ct. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903.
Chief Justice Marshall in Oliver v. Maryland Ins. Co., 11 U. S. (7 Cranch,) 487, 490, 3 L. Ed. 414 said: "An idle waste of time, after a vessel has completed the purposes for which she entered a port, is a deviation. * * *"
And deviation ends the contract and raises a tort liability. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Rosenberg Bros. & Co. (The West Aleta) 12 F.(2d) 721 (C. C. A.); Arnold v. Pac. Ins. Co., 78 N. Y. 7. See, also, The Sarnia (C. C. A.) 278 F. 459, 463; Atl. Coast Line v. Hinely-Stephens Co., 64 Fla. 175, 60 So. 749, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 999.
Mallory S. S. Co. v. Garfield (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 664, relied upon by libelant, is clearly shown not to have considered a like instant issue, at page 667: "If a duty rested upon the Mallory Line in its character, apart from its agency and was one that the law imposed upon it, independent of its agency employment, then it might be liable for tort." (Italics supplied.)
In the instant case, the principal is the party charged, and expressly is excepted in that case from the relation in issue.
The challenge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kopac Intern., Inc. v. M/V BOLD VENTURE
......§ 953(a)(2) may be found in another United States Supreme Court case, Osaka Shosen Kaisha v. Pacific Export Lumber Co., 260 U.S. 490, 497, 43 S.Ct. 172, 173, 67 L.Ed. 364 (1923). The Osaka Court explained that because the maritime lien operates ...v. M/V Floridian, 529 F.2d 221 (4th Cir.1975) (breach of carrier's common-law or statutory duty under COGSA); The Pacific Spruce, 1 F.Supp. 593 (W.D.Wash.1932) (cargo lien against common carrier). These cases are inapposite because the Bold Venture was not a common carrier, ......
-
Oriente Commercial, Inc. v. American Flag Vessel, M/V Floridian
......v. M/V Raleigh, D.C., C.Z., 361 F.Supp. 120 (1973); The Pacific Spruce, D.C., W.D.Wash., 1 F.Supp. 593 (1932). The St. Paul, D.C., S.D., N.Y., 277 F. 99 (1921), relied upon by the district court, ......