The Richard Winslow
| Decision Date | 17 April 1895 |
| Citation | 67 F. 259 |
| Parties | THE RICHARD WINSLOW. v. THE RICHARD WINSLOW. NORTON et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
The schooner Richard Winslow received at Chicago, November 16 1893, a cargo of corn to be carried to Buffalo. The bill of lading states that the lake freight is three cents per bushel, 'including free storage in vessel in Buffalo harbor until April 1, 1894, to be unloaded at shipper's option on or before April 1, 1894. ' The vessel arrived at Buffalo November 22, 1893. The cargo was then examined by two 'surveyors,' one selected by the consignee, and the other by the carrier, and they certified that it was in good condition and uninjured. The vessel was thereupon moored at a wharf, pursuant to direction by the shipper, and remained during the winter in charge of the master as ship keeper. In February there occurred heavy northeast gales which lowered the water in the harbor to an extra-ordinary degree, and the answer states that it caused 'said schooner to take the bottom, and strained the butts of her deck, hatch combings, and mast apartment, without any fault or neglect' on the part of the respondent; that, in consequence thereof, 'a portion of the cargo was found to be wet during the winter, and was taken out, and when the schooner was discharged in the spring' 820 bushels of corn was 'in bad condition, and the remainder somewhat damaged. ' The cargo was delivered April 7, 1894, and the consignee then paid the freight, but claims $2,202.64 for damages to the corn under the circumstances shown. After the inspection by the 'surveyors' on arrival, and in accordance with their suggestion, 'the hatches were put on and covered with tarred paper and canvas covers. ' The 'surveyors' made another examination after the February storm, and removed some wet corn, but pronounced the remainder safe, and closed the hatches. The testimony is undisputed that they looked over the deck and hatches and found no signs of openings from the strain, and that the decks were kept clear of snow throughout the winter. The libelants claim, and their testimony shows, that the grounding and listing of the vessel would tend 'to strain the deck and open the butts on deck and hatches,' and cause leakage; that the safest precaution was to try the seams with a knife, and go over them with the calking iron immediately after the vessel was restored to position. The testimony does not indicate that such measures were either suggested or adopted. The libelants further show that the vessel owner was living at Buffalo, was frequently about the vessel during the winter, was an experienced mariner, and they therefore claim he should have known of and adopted these requirements for protection of the cargo.
Schuyler & Kremer, for libelants.
Van Dyke & Van Dyke, for claimant.
SEAMAN District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The practice of utilizing vessels, when laid up for the winter as storehouses for grain has become frequent in the ports of the Great Lakes. The shipper thereby saves elevator charges, and the vessel owner secures a cargo. The transportation may precede the storage, or may close it; in either scheme the storage extends to the opening of navigation in the spring. In view of this practice, the questions involved in this case have special importance, and I have given them careful consideration. In the hope and expectation that they will be taken up by appeal, and thus become settled for this circuit, a brief statement of my conclusions will suffice for the purpose of a decree here.
1. Upon the facts it is clear and undisputed that the damages for which a recovery is sought by this libel originated after the vessel had completed the transportation,-- after arrival in Buffalo, inspection of the cargo, mooring and dismantling the vessel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Ins. Co. of New York v. MERCHANTS'TRANSP. CO.
...cites United Transportation & Lighterage Co. v. New York & Baltimore Transp. Line, 185 F. 386, 389, 391, 107 C. C. A. 442; The Richard Winslow (D. C.) 67 F. 259; Same on appeal, 71 F. 427, 18 C. C. A. 344; Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Ferguson, 76 F. 993, 22 C. C. A. 671; Marquardt v. French ......
-
Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. Coast Mfg. & Sup. Co.
...1943, 135 F.2d 443; American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 1947, 330 U.S. 446, 67 S.Ct. 847, 91 L. Ed. 1011. 10 Thus, in The Richard Winslow, D.C. Wis.1895, 67 F. 259, and Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. Interlake Steamship Co., 2 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 439, grain was loaded aboard ship for transp......
-
American Railway Express Company v. Rhody
... ... Dec. 769; ... Evershed v. London, etc., R. Co. (1877), 2 ... Q. B. Div. (Eng.) 254 ... In ... Norton v. The Richard Winslow (1895), 67 F ... 259, the court said: "It is the general rule of law ... respecting carriers of goods that their liability as carriers ... ...
-
The C. Vanderbilt
...wharfage, passed upon in this court, and affirmed by the circuit court, in The Murphy Tugs, 28 F. 429.' To the same effect are The Richard Winslow, 67 F. 259, affirmed the circuit court (7th Cir.) 18 C.C.A. 344, 71 F. 426, wherein it was said: 'A maritime contract must therefore concern tra......