Tweedie Trading Co. v. New York & B. Dyewood Co.

Decision Date23 December 1903
Docket Number27.
Citation127 F. 278
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
PartiesTWEEDIE TRADING CO. v. NEW YORK & BOSTON DYEWOOD CO.

Appeal from decree in admiralty dismissing libel for an alleged breach of charter party of the steamer Endsleigh. The steamer was chartered on January 29, 1901, to the respondent for the transportation of a shipment of quebracho wood from Colastine, Argentine Republic, to New York. Opinion below reported in 118 F. 492.

Everett P. Wheeler and Charles S. Haight, for appellant.

Wilhelmus Mynderse, for respondent.

Before LACOMBE and COXE, Circuit Judges, and HAZEL, District Judge.

HAZEL District Judge.

We concur in the conclusions of fact and law stated in the opinion of the court below, which determine that neither dead freight nor demurrage is recoverable. The facts are these: By the terms of the charter party, the Endsleigh was to proceed with all reasonable dispatch from the port of Rosario to the port of Colastine, on the Parana river, there to be loaded with 1,500 tons of quebracho wood, 10 per cent. more or less at the vessel's option. The cargo was to be furnished by the respondent. The agreement was modified on April 15, 1901 increasing the quantity of the contemplated shipment by 500 tons, and an additional 10 per cent. more or less at the option of the vessel. The rate of freight was slightly changed, but in all other respects the original charter party remained unaltered. The steamer was 285 feet in length. Her draft, when laden, was 20 feet 6 inches, and her capacity was 3,500 tons. The port of loading was approximately 120 miles above the port of Rosario, and between these ports there were two bars extending across the river, one 6 miles and the other about 50 miles below the port of loading. When the agreement as to quantity was modified as above stated, the existence of these bars and the varying depth of water in different seasons of the year were known to both parties.

The terms of the charter party which need to be construed bound the charterers to furnish the cargo 'within reach of the ship's tackles at ports of loading and discharge where steamer can always safely lie afloat; lighterage, if any, to be at expense and risk of cargo. ' This provision was added in writing at the end of the printed form of the agreement. It appears by the proofs that the vessel proceeded to the port of loading, the depth of water being ample, and arriving there, she loaded with 1,900 tons only. She declined to receive the full cargo at Colastine for the reason that she would have been unable to clear the bars below, where the depth of water was insufficient, owing to the lowering of the river (a condition which usually prevails during that season of the year), and get out to the open sea. The vessel arrived at Colastine on May 15, 1901, and immediately elected to take 10 per cent. more than 2,000 tons of cargo. Between the date of her arrival and May 29th, while the vessel was loading the river receded 9 inches. Even then there was an abundance of depth of water at the port of loading for a vessel of the draft of the Endsleigh, but over the bars the depth of water was insufficient to carry a greater amount of cargo than 1,900 tons. At the time the master of the Endsleigh elected to take the increased cargo, the river was falling; and subsequently, on May 28th, the vessel's draft then being 16 feet 9 inches aft and 16 feet 7 inches forward, she declined to receive more than 1,900 tons. This, as above stated, was then on board, in addition to 400 tons of coal. Soundings taken over the first bar a few days before the ship was loaded, and while the water was receding, disclosed a depth of water of about 18 feet, and at the lower bar 16 feet 11 inches. Thus the vessel was just enabled to clear the bars with the water she was drawing. Before leaving the port of loading the master of the Endsleigh requested that the balance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wyman v. Bowman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 11, 1904
    ... ... Tillinghast, 40 C.C.A ... 93, 99, 99 F. 801, 807; Mayor of York v. Pilkington, 1 ... Atk. 282; Lord Tenham v. Herbert, 2 Atk. 483; ... ...
  • Duferco Intern. Steel v. T. Klaveness Shipping
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 24, 2003
    ...damage arising from conditions at that port so long as those conditions were reasonably foreseeable. See Tweedie Trading Co. v. N.Y.&B. Dyewood Co., 127 F. 278, 280-81 (2d Cir.1903); see also 2A Benedict on Admiralty § 175, at 17-26 (7th ed. 2002). Since the named port of Taranto had predic......
  • FEDERAL COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION CO. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 26, 1969
    ...967, 83 S.Ct. 1092, 10 L.Ed.2d 130, rehearing denied, 373 U.S. 947, 83 S.Ct. 1536, 10 L.Ed.2d 703 (1963); Tweedie Trading Co. v. New York & Boston Dyewood Co., 127 F. 278 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 193 U.S. 669, 24 S.Ct. 852, 48 L.Ed. 840 Such inability to cross the bar occurred on January 26......
  • PAN CARGO SHIPPING CORPORATION v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 24, 1964
    ...that exist there." Poor, above cited, page 63. See also The Maggie Moore, 8 F. 620 (C.C.Md.1881); Tweedie Trading Co. v. New York & Boston Dyewood Co., 127 F. 278 (2d Cir. 1903); The Breynton, 1934 A.M.C. 1473, 1476 (arbitration at New York, The failure of the Navy to name another port afte......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT