The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

a ee ae ae 5 P MARITIME LAW. crm ay chet LIGHTERMEN — DELIVERING OF GOODS— NEGLIGENCE—DAMAGE TO CARGO. Circuit Court Eastern District of New York. Wallace, J. The libelant’s tobacco was. injured while being carried from the Caballeria wharf, \ Havana to the steamship ona lighter be- longing to Mendez & Company. ‘The ques- | tions in centroversy are, first, whether the el accident was oceasioned by the negligence 4 of the lighter or by a peril of the sea, and, ¥ secondly, whether the steamship is respon- sible for the negligence of the lighter. As to the first question, the case for the libelant is so plain as to be almost free from doubt. Three hundred and ninety-nine bales of tobacco, very dry and slippery, were taken on board by the lighter to be carried about a half mile from the wharf to the steamship lying in the harbor, ‘They were f piled in six tiers, three of which were above the gunwale and extended eight or nine feet above, and were wholly unprotected. As Pf the lighter proceeded under sail she en- countered a slight puff of wind which caused { her to careen slightly and eighty-six bales \ slipped off into the water. The. fact that - nearly a quarter of the cargo slid off into the seu when the lighter ‘only tipped a little,”’ (to quote the testimony of one of her own- ers,) is of itself enough to indicate that there was negligence of the rankest kind either in r putting on board much more cargo than could be sately carried on the lighter or tn failing to protect the bales by proper lashing. An attempt is madein defence of those in charge of the lighter to show that the cargo Ihe Marine Recond. is assented to, issue to the shipper a ship- ping order consisting of two parts, one part eontaining an order addressed to the purser of the steamer to receive the goods, the other containing a form of receipt to be signed by him upen receiving the goods, Mr. | ‘Todd, of Todd, Hidalgo & Company, was a partner at the time, and had been for many | years, of the firm of M:ndez & Company, which firm was the owner of a large number , of lighters, For several years it had been | the course of business between shippers at Havana, (ineluding the libelant’s and the agents for the steamship line, for the ship- pers to deliver the shipping orders received from Todd, Hidalgo & Company, to Mendez & Company, or their employees,and Mendez & Company, would sign the receipt part of the order and deliver it to the shipper, who thereupon, after delivering it to Todd, Hidalgo & Company, would receive from ‘them a bill of lading-in behalf of the steamer. Exceptionally shippers would send their merchandize on board the steamers by lighters other than those of Mendez & Com- pany, but Mendez & Company, seemed to have been understood by the mercantile com- munity at Havana to be the recognized lighters of the steamship company and the libelants had uniformly caused their goods to be delivered tothem, ‘The lighterers at Havana have a uniform tariff of rates and it was customary for the steamship company, when merchandise was delivered to their steamers by Mendez & Company, if lighter- age had not been paid by the shipper, to pay the lighteraye and add it as a distinet item to the charges to be collected, with the was loaded in the customary way practiced in Havana as to quantity and as to the means for securing the cargo. This defense succeeded in the district court, no evidence having been introduced there on the part of the libelant to controvert the alleged usage. If this usage was shown to prevail it would prove that the lightermen. of Havana are habitually careless and reckless in the conduct of their business; and it would seem incredible than an intelligent community would tolerate, much less sanction as an established usage, the practice of loading valuable cargoes in such a way that whenever the vessel meets a passing breeze a large part of the cargo is liable to be lost overboard. Slight evidence ought to suffice to overthrow the existence of such a usage. Evidence has been introduced upon this appeal which satisfactorily shows that the cargo was piled upon the lighter ex- _eessively high; that in such a trim it could ‘only be transported safely by a lighter not under sail but in tow of a tug; and that it is customary at Havana to protect such a cargo _ by lashing the bales to the lighter. The more debatable question is whether the lighter, while transporting the libelant’s tobacco, was in the service of the steamship so that delivery of the cargo to the lighter fee was a delivery to the steamer. The libel fe alleges that the libelants on the 10th day of Mareh, 1882, caused 399 bales of tobacvo to be delivered to the steamer Havana for transportation to the Port of New York, in good order and condition; that thereafter the steamer issued a bill of lading to the libelants» agreeing to convey the tobacco to the City of New York and deliver it to the libelants in like good order and condition; and that there was a breach of the agreement in that 86 of these bales were therefore delivered to the libelants in a damaged and nearly worth- l-ss condition. the answer admits that while the steamer was lying in the port at ! Havana there were delivered to the said q j steamer for transportation to New York 399 ; bales of tobacco and that thereatter the agents of the steamer issued on behalf of the steamer a bill of lading therefore to which reference is made for the contents thereof. ‘The answer then alleges affirma tively that before the tobacco was de- livered to said steamer, and while the same was in transit trom the shore to the steamer 86 bales were damaged by a peril ot the sea or otherwise, and that thereafter the bill of lading referred to was delivered, in which by an oversight or mistake the injury to said 86 bales was not specified, and that such fact was known to the libelants when they received the bill of lading. The proofs show that on the morning of March 10th, 1882, the libelants, through their agents at Havana, applied at the office of Todd, Hidalgo & Company, the agents for the owners of the line of steamships of which the City of Alexandria was one, for i transportation of 899 bales of tobacco to i New York. ‘The steamers of the line never ‘ come up to the wharves at Havana, but lie at anchor about half a mile from the Cabal- leria wharf, and all merchandise is taken to them by lighters. Persons desiring to make shipment by the line apply to the office of : Me : F peas : bes . mae ASR hk wee fn I itd ee freight, of the consignee. On the occasion in question the agent for the libelants after receiving the shipping order caused it to be delivered to Mendez & Company, and Mendez & Company, signed the receipt and it was deliverd to the libel- ant’sagent. This receipt acknowledged the reception on board the City of Alexandria of the 399 bales of tobacco in good order and condition. While the tobacco was being transported by the lighter from the wharf to the steamer, the 86 bales were damaged in the manner which has been’ stated. The same afternoon the agent of the libelant was notified of the accident. The next morning he called on Todd, Hidalgo & Company. They claimed the loss occurred by a peril of the sea, and that the libelant could re- cover the loss of the insurers of the cargo. They proposed to give the libelants a clean bill of lading for the 399 bales and to assist them in obtaining payment from the under- writers. ‘The libelant’s agent insisted that the libelant should be compensated for the loss, but consented to make a claim against the Switzerland Marine Insurance Company, the underwriters. Under these circum- stances, Todd, Hidalgo & Company, ex-: ecuted the bill of lading referred to in the libel] and answer, acknowledging the receipt | of 899 bales upon the steamship in good order, and undertaking to deliver the same to the libelant’sat New York. The libelauvs did not pay the lighterage. Nothing was said about it by any of the parties, and the amount was added tothe freight by the agents for the steamer on the bill of lading in the customary way. Upon the arrival of the steamer in New York, the libelants with the participation of the owners of the steam ship, madeaclaim against the insurers, There was no representation, however, that the loss occurred after the tobacco had been actually put on board the steamer, but the fact that the tobacco was injured by falling overboard while on the lighter was stated to the insurers. The insurers re- pudiated: liability for the loss. Thereupon this suit was brought. If the delivery otf the tobacco to the lighter was equivalent to a delivery to the owners of the steamer, the steamer is liable in rem notwithstanding the loss occurred be- fore the tobacco had been actually laden on board. cussion upon the authority of Bulxly v. lighter was employed by the n aster of the vessel to transport goo'ls to the vessel from | the wharf. The loss took place by an ex- plosion on the lighter which threw the goods into the water and subsequently the master of the vessel with knowledge of the facts signed aclean bill of lading for the whole quantity of the goods. The Supreme court held that the vessel. was bound from the time of the delivery of the goods by the shipper and acceptance by the master; that the delivery to the lighterman was a de- livery to the master that the transpor- tation by the lighter tothe ship was the commencement of the voyage in execution of the contract the same in law as if the This proposition is not open to dis stead of the lighter; and that the lighter was simply a substitute for the ship for this por- tion of the service. Inasmuch as the master is but the agent for the owner of the vessel this case cannot be distinguished from the case cited, if the owners themselves authorized the libelants to deliver their goods to the lighters of Mendez & Company, and have treated such a delivery as a delivery to their steamer. It 13 to be observed not only that for many years the owners through their agents Todd, Hidalgo & Company, have allowed Mendez & Company, to receive goods from shippers |to be taken by lighters to the steamships and sign receipts representing the goods as actually received by the steamships, but they have also allowed their agents to give bills of lading as though the goods actually on board a specified steamship, although they were only in the custody of Mendez & Company, as lightermen. ‘To such an extent has this practice been per- mitted to prevail as to give rise to a genera! understanding on the part of shippers deal- ing with them at Havana that Mendez & Com- pany, were the authorized lightermen for the steamship line, and that goods delivered to them were in the custody of the steamship by which they were to be transported. Un- der such circumstances it would seem to be immaterial whether the lightermen were acting for the owners under any distinct ar- rangement with them, or whether the own- ers had any pecuniary interest in the busi- ness of the ligther. It suffices that the owners held out Mendez & Company, to the public as intrusted with authority, by them to accept the delivery of goods and receipt for the goods in behalf of the steamships, and as to those, who, like the libelants, acted upon the faith of such apparent authority, the owners are estopped from disputing the existence of the authority exercised. It would seem doubtful that after a shipper had delivered goods to Mendez & Cumpany, pursuant to a contract with Todd, Hidalgo & Company, for their transportation by a particular steamer, had received a receipt from Mendez & Company, in behalf of the steamer, had presented that receipt to Todd, Hidalgo & Co., received a bill of lading in be- halfof the steamer there would be a lien up- on goods for freights in favor of the steamer, although the goods had not actually been put on board. They could not be heard to say. that they had not parted with the custody of their goods and delivered them in part performance of the contract for transportation to the steamship. If so, reciprocally, there would be a lien against the vessel in behalf of the shipper for the privileges of the contract. The special circumstances of the present case fortify the position of the libelants and place their rights upon a sound foundation. After all the facts were known, the agents for the owners recognized the delivery of the tobacco to the lighterman as a delivery to the steamship by signing the bill of lad- ing. ‘The answer does not challenge the authority of Todd Hidalgo & Company, to sign a clean bill of lading, but the owners having full knowledge of the facts when their answer was inter- posed assert in substance that the contract is not obligatory because it was made by their agents through oversight or mistake betore the tobacco was delivered to the steamer. ‘heir position upon the record is a ratification of the conduet of their agents, because they do not attempt to repudiate their oaths, but seek to excuse them by a falsehood. f The libelants are entitled to a decree with costs of this court and of the district court. Their loss seems to have been estimated in the sum of $4,669, upon an appraisal made by the underwriters, Ifa decree tor this sum with interest is not sxtistactory to either party, there will bea reference toa com. missioner to assess damages. sie A Camdev, N.J., man has invented and is having built an ovean trieyle. It will be made entirely ofiron and steel, except a Naumkeag Steam Cotton Company 24 How.! small platform where the operators will 886, The only distinction in the facts be-j stand, tween that case and this is that there the | The wheels will be eight feet in diameter, and will be worked by levers trom the platform, which will be twenty-seven feet from the ground. The- idea is to run this machine ont to stranded vessels when they lie in water not over twenty feet deep. The inventor says that three miles an hour can be made with the tricycle. The Lake Erie Boiler Works, Hammond | of superstructure ef outer secti & Coon proprietors, havet recently put into | feet im length (more or les their boiler shops the best and_ latest im- proved machinery for the manufacture of heavy marine boilers that ‘can be found in the world. ‘This firm makes a specialty of heavy marine work and can build without a fault in as short a time as any firm in the | ° country. nished at these works for the Anchor line they have ever seen. 4u8 feet in length (more or less). The four boilers now being fur- | oy an | the agents, and the agents, if the application | goods had been placed on board the ship in- | THE LAKECARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION, Special Correspondence to the Marine Record. Burra.o, September 3 Ata meeting of the board of managers of the Lake Uarriers’ Association, held at Buffalo, September 2, the following resolu- lutions were passed: Waereas, An excellent harbor of refuge on Luke Superior can be secured at Lac la Belle, Michigan, at moderate expense, by continuing improvement heretofure estab- lished there, and, Wuerreas, There is now no good har- bor of retuge anywhere on Lake Superior, and Lac Ja Belle would be a very desirable place for the establishment of such a harbor, Resolved, That the board of managers of the Lake Carriers’ Association urge upon congress the desirability of establishing and maintaining a harbor of refuge at Lac la Belle, Michigan, the channel from Lac la Belle to Bete Grise biy, (Lake Superior,) to were | be of not less than eighteen feet depth. Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the secretary of war, to the sena- tors and representatives from theedifferent districts represented by this board, and to other persons interested. An act “lo authorize the construction of a railroad bridge across the Sault ste. Marie river,’’ [H. R. 6104] which passed the house of representatives July 20, 1886, and was referred by the senate July 21, to the com- mittee on commerce, was taken up for dis- cussion. This act authorizes the Minneapo- lis, Sault ste. Marie, & Atlantic railway company to build a railroad and passenger bridge across the Sault ste, Marie river, at or near the rapids, ‘The board expressed itself as strongly opposed to the measure, as- dangerous to the rapidly increasing com- merce of Lake Superior, and instructed the secretary to ascertain what further action had been taken by the senate concerning the bill, and to report to the board at its next meeting, A chart of the Detroit river, on which the boundary line between the United States and Canada had been outlined in red by the department ot state, was submitted by the secretary. Any member degiring to make a tracing of this chart is at liberty to do so. Following are the officers of the associa- tion for 1886 7: President, S. D. Caldwell, Buffalo. Vice Presidents, James Ash, Buffalo; Frank J. Firth, Erie; James Millen, Detroit; W. M. Egan, Chicago. Secretary, Francis A)my, Buftalo. Treasurer, James Carey Evans, Buffalo. Board of Managers, Thomas Martin, Os- wego, N. Y.; James Ash, Buffalo, N. Y.; W. Bullard, Gen’l Mgr. U. S. Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; S. D. Caldwell, Gen’! Mgr. W. T. Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; David Donaldson, Buf- falo, N. Y.; E. T. Evang, Gen’! Mer. L, S. T. Co., Butfalo, N. Y.; W. P. Henry, Sup’t Lehigh Valley ‘l'ransp. Co., Buffalo, N. Y.; Frank J. Firth, Pres. Anchor Line, Erie, Pa.; M. Bradley, Cleveland, O.; H. M. Hanna, Cleveland, O.; Thos. Wilson, Mer. Wilson’s Line, Cleveland, O.; A. W. Colton, Mgr. Wabash Lake Line, Toledo, O.; James Millen, Mgr. Detroit Trans. Co., Detroit, Mich.; Eber Ward, Mgr. Ward’s D. & L. S. Line, Detroit, Mich.; James Davidson, Bay City, Mich.; Joseph Austrian, Gen, Mgr. LM. & L. S. T. Line, Chicago, Nl.; W. M. Egan, Chicago, Ill.; [ra H. Owen, Sup’t Esc. & L. M. T. Co., Chicago, Ill; R. P. Fitzgerald, Milwaukee, Wis.; David Vance, Milwaukee, Wis.; Alex McDongall, Duluth, Minn, : ‘ : Every owner, or authorized representa- tive of an owner, of any steam or other vessel navigating the great lakes or the waters tribucary thereto, it of good charac- ter and reputation, is eligible for member- ship in this association. Lhe annual dues are one dollar, together with ten. cents for each one hundred tons of registered vessel tonnage, and no member is liable for any further assessment or payment of any kind. For turther information address the secre- tary, at Batfulo, New York, An important ciretiar bas been received by the cuscom officials at Moutreal enjoin- ing them to use greater vigilanee in enfore- ing the laws concerning the coasting trade betweet! Canada and the United States. The circular also states that there being no treaty with the United sSrates, American vessels must not be allowed to go from one Canadian port to another tor cargoes, and orders the offivials to take the most string- eut Measures to enforce these rules. ADVERTISE MENT, Pea UT ANS REE OURS a5 MECN fay SONS “wat cen eee cee PRUPOSALS FOR HARBUR 1M PROVEMENTS, UNITED STa?ESs ENGINEER OFFICE,). _ 866 MILWAUKEE St,, MILWAUKEE Wis, | . August 27,1886, | EALED PROPOSALS, in triplicate, will be re-. ceived at this ffice until 12 0’clock noon September 14, 1886, and opened paysite thereaftew in the presence of bidders for the following harbor improve-- ments, viz: . Harbor of Refuge, Milwaukee Bay, Wis. sion of Breakwater 850 feet (more or less), and 650 feet of superstructure on existing work, 2 Milwaukee Harbor, Wis. Cu.ting down and re- Exten- ¥ building of superstructure of Outer section of north pier, 600 feet in length (more or less). Harbor, Wis. Racine Cutting down and rebuilding — on of south pier, 550 Bhai 4 ¢ Kenosha Harbor, Wis. toning down and rebuild- ing of superstructure of inner section ef south pie Proposals will be accompanied by a guaranty that the bid be accepted, contraet will entered within ten days after notice of acceptance. __ au blank preposals and intormation, appl ce, eae ihe Calvan States reserves the rizht to re; ‘the enyelo ey “