The Seaboard
| Decision Date | 03 December 1902 |
| Citation | 119 F. 375 |
| Parties | THE SEABOARD. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Coudert Bros., for libellant.
Robinson Biddle & Ward, for claimant.
This was an action brought by the libelant, by rights of subrogation, to recover certain amounts paid by it to various shippers of goods on the steamer Seaboard for delivery at Carrabelle, Florida, in September, 1899.
The principal facts have been agreed upon and may be stated briefly as follows:
The steamer, prior to and during September, 1899, was being run by one W. C. Taylor, as charterer under the name of the Mobile Steamship Company, as a common carrier of such freight as she might, from time to time, receive for transportation between Mobile and Carrabelle and other points; that upon each trip from Mobile, the steamer was put upon the berth as a general ship, and advertised as such, and received such cargo as was offered her, giving receipts in a form which among other things, provided that 'The carrier is not to be liable for any damage to any goods which is capable of being covered by insurance' and that the agent of the vessel should have 'the option of hiring lighters at the port of destination for the landing of the * * * goods, at the expense and risk of the owners of the said goods' that about the middle of September, 1899, or a little later the steamer Seaboard was placed upon berth for cargo in Mobile, and the goods in question were shipped upon her to certain consignees, in good order and condition, to be transported to Carrabelle and there delivered to the respective consignees, or to a connecting carrier, to be forwarded to the consignees; that the Walker Steamship Company owned the steamer in May, 1899, and continued to own it until May 25, 1900, during which time she was chartered to said Taylor, who had the right, and exercised it, of appointing all her officers and crew except the chief engineer; that upon the 25th of May, 1900, the owner sold the steamer to the present claimant; that the several shippers had heard that some of the steamers being operated by Taylor, under the style of the Mobile Steamship Company, were chartered vessels but did not know whether the Seaboard was under charter, or not; that each of the shippers insured with the libellant the respective goods shipped by them, in amounts which were fair values of the goods with ten per cent. added, and the several lots of goods were fairly worth at Carrabelle, the several amounts for which they were insured, plus the freight thereon less the added ten per cent.; that the steamer transported the goods safely to Carrabelle and there unloaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pioneer Import Corporation v. The Lafcomo
... ... The Esrom, 2 Cir., 272 F. 266; The Star of Hope, 17 Wall. 651, 84 U.S. 651, 21 L.Ed. 49 F. Supp. 562 719. The fact that the ship was operated by respondent under a charter from claimant does not affect the liability of the ship. The Seaboard", D.C., 119 F. 375. The cargo owner's right to the lien is based upon an implied hypothecation of the ship to secure the performance of the contract of affreightment, once the cargo is aboard. Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Dimon S. S. Corp., 290 U.S. 117, 121, 54 S.Ct. 105, 78 L.Ed. 216 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Isthmian Steamship Co. v. California Spray-Chemical Corp.
... ... The Seaboard, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1902, 119 F. 375, similarly exhibits a judicial antipathy towards lighterage clauses, but it does not directly support appellee's case because the carrier's employees were themselves negligent in carrying out the lighterage operations ... We uphold the district court ... ...
-
Colton v. New York & Cuba Mail SS Co.
... ... The decision depended on a finding that the North German Lloyd was a common carrier throughout the service, and had not exercised due diligence to make the lighter seaworthy, so as to come within the exemptions of the Harter Act (46 USCA ?? 190-195). To the same effect is The Seaboard (D. C.) 119 F. 375, and The Ogeechee (D. C.) 248 F. 803. Here the carrier failed to take proper care of the cargo, either by providing a covered lighter, or by waiting until the severe cold abated, or by having sufficient tarpaulins and properly fastening them down. In none of these acts of ... ...
-
Morris v. Lamport & Holt, Limited
... ... See Insurance Co. of North America v. North German Lloyd (D. C.) 106 F. 973, 976; The Seaboard (D. C.) 119 F. 375. So the exception is valid only in so far as the loss arose from risk of craft to and from ship and not chargeable to negligence ... The question then is whether the damage was due to negligence on the part of the lighterman. In my opinion it was. The rope was ... ...