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

MARITIME LAW. COMMON CARRIERS—TRANSSHIPMENT—DAM- AGES—KISE IN MARKET VALUE DURING DETENTION BY FAULT OF CARRIER, U. S. District Court, District of New Jersey. 1. Where a eon-ignment of prune-} shipped ut Trieste for New York via Palermo | was transsbipped at Palermo aid was stored ina lighter exposed to hot weather there for filry-five days, sud was then brought to New York »nd deliverei in adamuage! condition. H 11, the damage was due to the expo-ure at Velermo and not to inherent deterioration, 2, Although the market price of the prunes advanced during the interval be tween the time when the prunes should have arrived in New York in due course, and the time of actual arrival after the detention at Palermo, held, that the carrier could not take any advantnge of this rise in market 'o reduce the damages resulting from Ins negli- gence and delay in transshipping the prunes, Wales, J. This cuse was referred to Linsley Rowe, Heq., commis-ioner, to ascertain and report the amount of damages, if, any, suffered by the libelanis, by 1eason of the delay of the respondents in (ransshipping at Palermo 600 casks of prunes which had been shipped at Trieste to be delivered in New York, The prunes should have been delivered in New York not later than the 28th of April, but did not arrive until the 11th of the fullow- ing June, having been detained at Palermo for fifty-five days. The question whether there had been neglect and unreasonable delay on the purt of the respondents in for- warding the cargo from Palermo was de cided by Judge Nixon, who held that ‘‘if any injury resulted to the cargo from the long detention, the loss must be charged to the respondent corpyration which caused iv” (28 Fed. Rep., 915.) There was some con- flict in the testimony submitted to the com- missioner as to the condition of the fruit when it arrived in New York, and whether its damaged condition was the effi ct of in- herent deterioration, or of exposnre for an unreasonable time to the hot climate of Sicily? On both of these points, the pre- ponderating proof sustains ihe allegations of the libel. The fruit had been selected with unusual care, having been twice inspected ‘before it was shipped at Trieste; while at Palermo it was stove in an old hulk ora ‘floating magizine for nearly two ucnths ot the hottest period of the yeur in that region. ~The resuit of such exposure could not be other than injurious. 2 On the extent ‘of the injury directly trace- ‘the cause, the testimony is contra- lictory ut it certainly doee not require very C “evidence to prove that perishable ich like prures ‘eannot stand long ex- sure ) a tropica! climate without msk of ury, if not cf a total Joss. AB a fact about two thirds of the prunes 1d damaged when examined in er nd New Yor c immediately alter their delivery. : The libelunt notified the respondents’ agents " that in consequence of the wrongful deten. tion he would hold the respondents lable for damages, and requested them to appoint some person to represent them at an inspec- tion of the fruit, with the view to an ani cable adjustment. This request was declined, or at lea-t not complied with, aud the libel- ant’s experts inspected the casks in the absence of the respondents, and made wyit- ten records which were among the exhibits ia the case. One of the inspectors states thar 409 easks were damuged from 12 10 30 per cent in value, and the owner says that he never saw prunes arriving between January and June as badly injured. The respondents witnesses contradict these statements, but their examination of the fruit was saperficial their report was not reduced to writing and as they gave their testimony from recolecton long afterwards, it cannot be deemed of full weight with the libejants proofs, The prunes were sold on the 8th of July, within jess than one month after their delivery. One hundred and ninety-one casks of sound fruit brought 8 cents per pound, and four hundred and sine casks of damaged fruit sold for five and one quarter cents per pound. On the day of the sale the market price of sound prunes wae Fix cents and the libel- ant claims as the measure of his sale the difference between that price and the sale for which the damaged casks sold, which would be three fourths of acent. On the other band, the respondents contend that the libelants is not entitledto recover anything on the broad ground that the delay in de- livering the prune: instead of being a loss, | resulted in an actual profit to the libelant; in other words, that the prunes sold for much more on the 8th of July than they would have sold on the 28th of the preced- ing April, the day when they should haye |; been delivered. Reduced to figures, the libelant made u total profit on the whole lot of six hundred casks, in consequence of the advance of the market price between April 28th and July 8th of $4 818 08, The commissioner, after a careful review of the evidence, and an elaborate discussion of the law relating to the rule of damages in such cases, has found for the libelant, esti- mating his loss of the sale of the unsound prunes at one half cent on the pound, that being the difference between the market price of sound prunes on June 18th, the day of delayed delivery (534), uk Ihe Marine Reconil. ‘The items of damage are reported ag follows: Damage to 409 casks prunes, weigh-.. ING ce civess coos ann Net 556,712 Ibs , at gc. Cooperage...cce.. 205 coe os sone 120.00 2.903 56 Interest on above from Junes8.1881., 1,161.50 Interes on invoice $33,000.00 for.. AO OSGEs sous Cees eee cose ieee eid 220,60 $4,285 06 In fixing this measure of damages, the commissioner say; “the testimony shows that the prices for the season were as follows: March, 51¢c; April and May, 6c. This gives ns the average price tor the season 5c.” Upon a careful consideration of the whole ma'tt-r—I am of opinion that under the cir- cum-tances of this case, the damages must be mensured by the price at the date of de- livery, which proved to be 53c.”’ The Jibelant claimed the difference be- tween 514 cents and 6 cents, but the com- missioner hastily concluded that he had no right to store the goods, and wait for a rising The libelant was obliged to use reasonable diligencein disposing of the gonds, but not to delay the sale at the risk of further deterioration of a perishable article. The items of damage are reported as fol- lows: The exception to the principal item ot damage would have some validity if the de- layed delivery had not been caused by the fuult of the respondents; but it having been decided that ‘he long detention at Palermo, was direcilv attributable to their negile:t to provide means for prompt transhipment, (hey cannot now be allowed to txke advan- tage of their own wrong, and claim a par- ticipation of profits growing out of a rise in the market price. The profit accruing trom the aceidental rise in the market belonged to the libellant, and it would be an extraordi nary misapplica ion of the principles of jus tice to allow the respondents to escape all lixbi ity tor their negligence and dere ic ion of duty by depriving the lite jant of ny rec mp nse fur their wrong be ause of the advarnoe in price; to do this wou!d be to be 8toW a premium on the misconduct of the respondents. The il ustration presented on the argument by libel ant’s proctor exhibits the dangers of ad: pling the rule contended lor ty the respondents. Here wei'e 600 casks of prunes consigned io the li ean’; Suppose that the price had doubled betwee: 4 April 28,'he diy waen the yshouid have be-n d liver d, and June lith, the day*of actual de ivery., Suppo e, also, that 300 caks were delivered sound, and the other 300 were totally destreyed, by the faul of the catries. Can the shipowner claim that the doubling of the marker price had relieved bim trom payment forthe tialf destroved? Itis ad uitied tbat had the delay occur ed without fault on the part of the earner, the libellant would not be entitled to recover, i Having beén well settled by competent aa th vrity, that in long and nneert in: voyages by sea,tne dainages by the full of the market are tuo retoute to be recoverable against the cxrrier, Parana 2 P.D.,118; Tue Nc tring Hill, 9 P, D., 105. Im the !anver case, it was said by Sir James Hannen, that the los: of market is an accidental buss aun tne allowance of such a claim would also be contra y t+ the Jong «s ablished praciice of the aim ra ty court. But bere there was 1o pr of that the long delay was caused by any stre-s of Weather, but it seens tu have arisen from the responden's neglect to provide for the more direct tran portation of the m rchan- dise to New York after its. arrival in Paler- mo. In ihe cause of the ship Sadiencelio (8 Ben., 90) rags damaged by cont.ct with pe- troileum were Oli ul auction and bought by the consignee, and by him manufactured into p»per which brougbt the sane price as paper mavulfacturd trom sound gi ods. it was held that the price as determiued by the sale, fixed the damages, aud tiac the su! sequent manuficture into paper could nol reduce tne damages iesulling {rom the saiuration, Even where the measure ot damages has veen fixed by the pirties, the carrier cannot be exempted from the conse- queuces of his own wrong by the sale of the goods at an advanced price. lo learse vs. Quebec Steamship Co,, 24 Fed. Rep.. 285, the bil ct Jading was for fourteen bales, three of which wer: dam- aged. It contained the clanse that “in case ol damage loss or non-delivery, the, ship- owners wil! not be liab'e for more than the invoice valne of the goods.” The invoice value of the goods was $2,692,16, the price obtained for tre whole im the foreign mar- ket was $2,901,85. The invoice value of the damuged goods alone was $571,05; the act- ual prce ree-ived for them was $184,85, The respondents there con'ended that the stipulation of the bill of ladiag could be construed as limiting their responsibility to the invoice value of the shipment as a whole, and that the carriers were not to be liable for any loss or damage, provided the shipper ulumately realized at the port of destination the whole iuvoice value. But the court held that if the construction contended tor by the claimants were the proper meaning of the limited clause, fe wouia be void upon grounds of public policy, as unreasonub'e and as affording a direct encouragement to the thett or nou delivery of the shippers’ goods, for ou every shipment, whether there was a loss or not, the carrer might without accountability appropriate to his own use paonen of the owners goods to reduce the aggregate value of whut re mained in the fureign market, to the involce value of the whole, a result destructive of all commerce, because enabling the carrier to appropriate all its profits. ‘he deeree in that case, was, that the libellant was award- ed the difference between the invoice value of the goods damaged and freight, and ithe net proceeds of the sale of them, see ‘also Sedgwick on Damages, 56 (Ed., 1880), note; “Damages not reduced by benefit to plain- tiff accruing through defendants wrong. Nor have the respondents any just cause to complain of the postponement of the gale of the damaged prunes. ‘The interval of time that elapsed between deliyery and market, - ++ $2,783.56 | the day of sale was not long, It was the}, duty of the libellent to prevent a sacrifice. of his property, aud to obtain the best mar- ket price, and this this conrse wae cour-e was eqnally ad vantageous to the respondents, for if the damaged prnnes had been sold immedintely on their artival, it is quite probatle thar they would hsve sold for les: than they did, there is no eviderce that they might have b ought more, morever, it is questionsble whether the libellant would have been jus- | Ay Cleveland Block Co,’ MANC ACTUKERS OF LronTaekle locks A S. De Yrigs, SHIP AND ORNAMENTAL PAINTER, 22 Seuth Water street, Cleveland, 0. iifled in muking an immediste sale, and i Pe ee Established in 1871, Telephone 210 without any endeavor to secure the highe-t \ TAKING THE PLACE OF, 5 Manges attainable price. WOODEN BLOCKS FOR | | seme Steering Balls, Liberty Caps, Orna- In Read vs: Tove Marinin S,. 28 Fed. Rep. 668, it was suid to be unreasonable to throw a lurge quantity of goods on the market tor sale at auction as damaged goods, upon a slight examination, a> the assumed ri-k and loss of thea vessel, and that a evurt of ade miralty would not support anv such p e- cipitate action, It was held thatthe ma ter was entitled to tne same protection against unreasonable und indi-criminaie sales by the consignee in the port of discharge on the vessel’s acconnt and risk, that is ioip: sed PURPOSE= CLEVELAND. 0 ALL 159 ts, mental Work ab pevialty in Cabins, ‘ EAGLE [RON WV ORES MANUFACTURERS OF i o Ios on the master in favor of the owner on al CS -_— : oe saie by the master in a foreign port o 2 oo The responden's turther cla'm that the | GQ @«@ — a amcunt of rebate of duties all»wed to th- = = wo libellan’ at the Custom Ho s+ shonld he de Oo = on oO a” ducted frou. the damages ascertained by the} qo - w= QD Baa: Seo commissioner. This question has alreads — a0 ao = heen adjudicated, The Eroe, 8 F- ;,161;17}) TS CO eae ar Blatch, 16; The Lizzie W. Virden 8 Fed. Rup| @D 0 == =o => 624 There bate was the customary one all»wed| ao a —_ ‘isl on all fruit cargoes, the benefit of which te-| eg = Qa. wm > longed to the owner, and had no refecenes |e. ‘ cS ow Ss to the damages catised by the resnondenis| CG GD d= oO @o A Aas Saher — Qo = _-:, neglect and differing in this respect from the => oOo of ry Mangulore, 23 Fed. R p ,463, cited by the re- | =" pe = naa spondents proctor, ts ao : = The exceptions are overruled and the re- | «=== - & pee sie port conffrmed: and it is ao n= (oe = OrpERED thata decree be entered fer the a: D ao Ke libellant tor rhe amount tound t» be due by a pe cc 4 = — Mabe ees the commissioner, with interest on the suw of $2,903 56 from the 15th day of February 1888 (the day of fling the report to the day en ering the decze, with costs, November 5th, 1888. THE SIMPLES? AND wks! OF FEKED—SATISFACTION GUARANTEED. SUBMERGED RLUE BOILERS Engines, Boilers and Pumps on Hand for Prompt sunt CIRCULARS AND PRICES ON APPLICATION. Woodbridge. Fifth and Congress- sts, Detroit, Mich (*Claimant was subseqnen ly allowed his disbursement, on the ground that the vers-! Was attached after he had given norice to the libelant that he would appear aud bound on notic of the filing of this libel. ul SES AND WITH FLANGED ra jah Take 10th or 28 10th or 28: } “Street Ferries Man factiee = SOLELY IN THE UNTYED STATES AND THOSE or Samson that. ¥| “THE CONTINENTAL IRON WORK Sg oe B ROOK LYN, NEW YORK. emeenee BELTING AND PACKING COMPA from New Yor, to QREENPOINT. a Tuos. F. rE Rowianb, JR., Treasurer, Zs Vuleanized Rubber Packing of Every Description. e _ <IRUBBER MATS AND STAIR-TREADS oe a For Halls, Floors, Decks and Companionways,. Rubber Belting, Packing and Hose. FIRE TEST HOSE FOR STEAMBOATS & ae: J. D, CHEEVER, "Dept. Treas.t WAREHOUSE: 15 PARK RoW, NEW No, 308 Chestnut St,, Phila, 203 Nicollet Ave, Minneapolis ‘ Post & @o , Cine nnati, Ov 151 Lake St., Ch cago, 52. & 54 ‘Sum 5 Cor Wazee und 17th Sts., Denver, Col, Arnett & Rivers, 17. & 19 Mai. Sr, SaniFra_ cisco, European Branch—Pickhuben 5, H»mburg Cfreihafengebiaiy LIDGERWOOD MANUF’G COMPAN HOISTING ENGIN FOR VESSELS AND DOCKS. DECK HOISTS » SPECIAL COCR i aS S ee CS . PFA ATas aoe oi cree ee EX eee ee PRY 92 3295928292923292923202 We ae za nas VA Bee SEE REE ae OAR PERFORATED an JOHN H. CHEEVER Treas. WHARF AND WORKS, SOUTH BROOKEEH. IN; AT PAGER BOILER WORKS” iD). RITKR, PRorRimror, Cnr, Indiana and Mary $t., Butfalo, N. ¥. (r<=>T Ty The Latest Improved: Hydraulic Machinery — | USED IN ALL CLASSES OF WoRK’ Marine, Stationary, Portable. Locomo~ tive and Upri wt ile Pans, a bat ee mg an sis, oat ht Fie te iron W Work fall De scriptions. REPAIRS PROMPTLY ATTEN- DED TO.