Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 171 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 171 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


hold above the wheat, and the lower part
of. which was below the surface of the
river, so that it remained full of water,
froze and burst, and water from the
river ran in upon the cargo. The ship-
keeper in charge for the owners knew
that water was entering the vessel, but,
on the supposition that it came in from
a different place, made no examination for
a month, although he could easily have
done so; and during all that time the
water continued to run in upon the
wheat, doing it serious damage. Held,
that the result should reasonably have
been anticipated, and that, moreover, the
keeper was guilty of gross negligence,
which rendered the owner of the vessel
liable for the injury to the cargo, irre-
spective of the obligation assumed under
the bill of lading to deliver the cargo
safely at the port of destination, dangers
of navigation, fire, and collision alone
excepted. Northwestern Transp. Co. v.
Leiter, 107 Fed. 953, 47 C. C. A. 97.

22. Loss from heat or heating. — See
post, "Loss from Heat or Heating," §
4472.



23. Risk of refrigeration. — See post,
"Risk of Due Refrigeration." § 4469.

24. Carriage in open barge at owner's
risk. — See post, "Jettison," § 4461.

25. Perils of sea definition. — The Ma-
jestic, 166 U. S. 375, 41 L. Ed. 1039, 17
S. Ct. 597.

Losses arising from the dangers of
navigation are not such as are in any de-
gree produced from the intervention of
man. They are such as happen in spite
of human exertions, and which can not
be prevented by human skill and pru-
dence. When efforts fail to save the
goods from the excepted peril, the ulti-
mate loss and damage in judgment of
law result from the first cause, upon the
ground that when human exertions are
insufficient to ward ofif the consequences,
the expected peril may be regarded as
continuing its operation. Propeller Niag-
ara V. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 7, 16 L.
Ed. 41.

26. The G. R. Booth, 19 S. Ct. 9, 171
U. S. 450, 43 L. Ed. 234, certifying case
64 Fed. 878.

27. Transportation Co. v. Downer (U.
S.), n Wall. 129, 20 L. Ed. 160.

28. Damage by sea water. — The Fol-
mina, 212 U. S. 354, 53 L. Ed. 546, 29 S.
Ct. 363, 15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 748,
following The G. R. Booth, 171 U. S. 450,
43 L. Ed. 234. 19 S. Ct. 9.



4021



LIMITATIONS OF LIAI^ILITV.



§§ 4457-4461



tions of a charter party and bill of lading.^^ But damage to cargo caused by
seawater which enters through the deck by reason of its defective condition,
which renders the vessel unseaworthy for the particular voyage and cargo ; ^^
or damage to cargo from sea water, where such water entered because of the
obstruction of a valve, due to the failure to exercise due diligence in the equip-
ment of the ship at the beginning of the voyage; is not a loss by perils of the
sea,^^ or through dangers of the sea.

§ 4458. Collisions, Stranding, Obstructions of Navigation. — Collision -''-
or stranding ^^ is doubtless a peril of the sea, navigation, or river. Thus the
dangers of unknown obstructions have been held to be a peril of navigation,
as, for instance, a loss from striking an unmarked, unknown and hidden ob-
struction below the surface of the water,^-* a loss occasioned by running into
a sunken tree, the presence of which was unknown ; ^^ and a loss from run-
ning upon a sand reef recently found in a river. ^♦^

§ 4459. Explosions. — Explosions are not included among the perils of the
sea.^' As. for instance, the explosion of a steam boiler on a steam vessel, ^^
or of box of detonators. Where a box of detonators stowed in the hold of a
vessel, as a part of the cargo, exploded, tearing a hole in the side of the ship
below the water line, through which the sea water immediately entered, and,
penetrating into the next compartment, damaged a consignment of sugar ; al-
though the explosion and the inflow of the water were concurrent causes of the
damage, yet the explosion, and not the inflow of the sea water, was the proxi-
mate and responsible cause of damage, and the damage was not occasioned by
a peril of the sea within the exceptions in the bill of lading. ^^ The vessel hav-
ing reached her port of destination, and being engaged in unloading, at the time
of the explosion, the damage would not come within a provision of the bill
of lading exempting the carrier from liability for loss or damage occasioned
by an "accident of navigation." "^^

§ 4460. Fire. — The words "perils of the river"' do not include fire.'*^

§ 4461. Jettison. — A jettison, the necessity for which was occasioned solely
by a peril of the sea, is a loss by a peril of the sea, and within the exception
contained in the bill of lading."*- But, if the unseaworthiness of the vessel, at



29. The Sandfield. 79 Fed. 371, decree
affirmed in 92 Fed. 663, 34 C. C. A. 612.

30. The Nellie Floyd. 116 Fed. 80. af-
firmed in 122 Fed. 617, 60 C. C. A. 175.

31. Decree 138 Fed. 743, affirmed in
The Brilliant, 159 Fed. 1022, 86 C. C. A.
671.

32. Collisions, stranding, obstructions of
navigation. — Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Phe-
nix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 L. Ed.
788, 9 S. Ct. 469, citing General Mut. Ins.
Co. V. Sherwood (U. S.), 14 How. 351,
14 L. Ed. 452. and Orient Mut. Ins. Co.
V. Adams. 123 U. S. 67, 31 L. Ed. 63, 8
S. Ct. 68; The Portsmouth (U. S.), 9
Wall. <;82, 19 L. Ed. 754.

33. Stranding. — Liverpool, etc., Co. v.
Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 L. Ed.
788, 9 S. Ct. 469, citing General Mut. Ins.
Co. V. Sherwood (U. S.), 14 How. 351, 14
L. Ed. 452, and Orient Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Adams, 123 U. S. 67, 31 L. Ed. 63, 8 S.
Ct. 68.

34. Hostcttcr v. Park, 137 L. S. 30, 34
L. h.d. 568, 11 S. Ct. 1.

35. Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc..



Transp. Co., 120 U. S. 166, 30 L. Ed. 621,
7 S. Ct. 550.

36. Hil)ernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc.,
Transp. Co., 120 V. S. 166, 30 L. Ed.
621, 7 S. Ct. 550.

37. Explosions.— The G. R. Booth, 171
U. S. 450, 43 L. Ed. 234, 19 S. Ct. 9.

38. Propeller Mohawk (U. S.), 8 Wall.
153, 19 L. Ed. 406; The G. R. Booth, 171
U. S. 450, 43 L. Ed. 234, 19 S. Ct. 9.

39. The G. R. Booth, 171 U. S. 450. 43
I.. Ed. 234, 19 S. Ct. 9; The Folmina, 212
T;. S. 354, 53 L. Ed. 546, 29 S. ' Ct. 363.
15 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 748.

40. The G. R. Booth, 19 S. Ct. 9. 171
L'. S. 450, 43 L. I'".d. 234, certifying case.
64 Fed. 878.

41. Fire. — -Garrison v. Memphis Ins.
Co. (L. S.), 19 How. 312. 15 L. Ed.
65(;. See post, "Fire," § 4466.

42. Jettison.— Dupont de Nemours &
Co. r. X'ance (U. S.), 19 How. 162. 15
L. I'.d. 584, distinguished in Ralli ?■.
Troop, 157 U. S. 386, 39 L. Ed. 742, 15
S. Ct. 657; Lawrence v. Minturn (U. vS.),
17 How. 100, 15 L. lul. 58. Sec, to tlie



§§ 4461-4462 carriers. 4022

the time of sailing on the voyage, caused, or contributed to produce, the ne-
cessity for the jettison, the loss is not within the exception of perils of the
seas.'^'^

Fault or Breach of Contract by Master or Owner. — But if a jettison of a
cargo becomes necessary in consequence of any fault or breach of contract by
the master or owners, the jettison is attributable to that fault or breach of con-
tract, and not to sea peril, though that also may be present and enter into the
case. This distinction is familiar in the law of insurance.'*'* Thus, a wrongful
jettison of sound cattle by order of the master, from unfounded apprehensions,
during rough weather, is not a "loss or damage occasioned by causes beyond
his [the carrier's] control, by the perils of the sea, or other waters," or "by
collisions, stranding, or other accidents of navigation," in the meaning of the
bill of lading.'*^ And an exception, in a bill of lading of cattle, as follows:
"On deck, at owner's risk ; steamer not to be held accountable for accident to
or mortality of the animals, from whatever cause arising," — does not cover a
jettison of uninjured cattle, in rough weather, by order of the master, from
unfounded apprehension, in the absence of any pressing perils of the ship, and
without any attempt to separate them from cattle previously injured.'*'^

In case of jettison of deck load, neither the master, carrier, nor ship is
responsible to the owner, unless the goods were stowed on deck without the
consent of the owner, or a general custom binding him, and then he would
be chargeable with the loss."*"

§ 4462. Storms. — Where a shipping contract excepted acts of God, other
words of exemption from liability for injury from storm are not needed.'*^
The loss of logs which broke loose from a raft by reason of a high wind, after
they had been towed out to a steamer for loading in the open sea ; "^^ the death
of horses appearing to have resulted from the violence of a hurricane;-'''* and

same eflfect, General Mut. Ins. Co. v. cargo of mahogany logs, the ship was

Sherwood (U. S.), 14 How. 351, 14 L. Ed. obliged to lie three miles off shore in the

452; The Portsmouth (U. S.), 9 Wall. 682, open sea, the logs being delivered in

19 L. Ed. 754; The G. R. Booth, 171 U. rafts, which were made fast to the ship,

S. 450, 43 L. Ed. 234, 19 S. Ct. 9. See, and bills of lading then given for the

also. The Star of Hope (U. S.), 9 Wall. same, the vessel is not liable for logs

203, 19 L. Ed. 638. which broke away from the rafts and

43. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Vance were lost before they were loaded, when
(U. S.), 19 How. 162, 15 L. Ed. 584, dis- reasonable diligence was exercised in the
tinguished in Ralli v. Troop, 157 U. S. loading, and the loss arose either from
386, 39 L. Ed. 742, 15 S. Ct. 657. unusual weather conditions, making a

44. Fault or breach of contract by mas- case of perils of the sea within the ex-
ter or owner. — Lawrence v. Minturn (U. ceptions in the bills of lading, or be-
S.), 17 How. 100, 15 L. Ed. 58; General cause they were insufficiently secured in
Mut. Ins. Co. V. Sherwood (U. S.), 14 the rafts through the negligence of the
How. 351, 14 L. Ed. 452; The Portsmouth shipper. Decree 132 Fed. 160, affirmed in
(U. S.), 9 Wall. 682, 19 L. Ed. 754; The Munson Steamship Line v. Steiger & Co.,
G. R. Booth, 171 U. S. 450, 43 L. Ed. 234, 3 36 Fed. 772, 69 C. C. A. 492.

19 S. Ct. 9. 50. Death of horse due to violence of

45. Compania De Navigacion La Flecha hurricane. — A special written contract be-
V. Brauer, 18 S. Ct. 12, 168 U. S. 104, 42 tween a steamship company and the ship-
L. Ed. 398, affirming decree 66 Fed. 776, per of a horse stipulated that the com-
14 C. C. A. 88. pany should furnish room on the steam-

46. Compania De Navigacion La Flecha ship for the horse, and supply it with
T. Brauer, 18 S. Ct. 12, 168 U. S. 104, 42 water on the passage, and that the com-
L. Ed. 398, affirming decree 66 Fed. 776, pany should be in no manner liable for
14 C. C. A. 88. any accident that should happen to the

47. Lawrence v. Minturn (U. S.), 17 horse on board the ship by reason of the
How. 100, 15 L. Ed. 58. perils of the sea, sickness, disease, or any

48. Storms. — Unique Shipping Co. v. other unavoidable cause whatever, and,
Guffey Petroleum Co., 169 Fed. 905. de- further, that the shipper would, at his
cree affirmed in 177 Fed. 1005, 100 C. C. own expense, provide stalls and food dur-
A. 200. ing the voyage, and proper grooms to

49. Loss of logs. — Where, in loading a take sole charge of the horse. During



4023



LIMITATIONS OF LIAEILITY.



4462-4464



damage to cargo from water escaping from a ballast tank which had become
buckled in a storm i-^^ were losses due to a peril of the sea, within an exemp-
tion in the bill of lading, and the ship is not liable therefor.

§ 4463. Neg-lig-ence of Carrier or Servants.— The negligence of the car-
rier, or his servants, is not a peril of the sea.^"*- By the law of both England
and America the ordinary contract of a common carrier by sea involves an
obligation to use due care and skill in navigating the vessel and carrying the
goods ; and an exception, in the bill of lading, of perils of the sea, or other
specified peril, does not excuse him from that obligation, nor exempt him from
liability for loss or damage from one of those perils to which the negligence
of himself or his servants has contributed.^^ "Dangers of navigation" or "per-
ils of the sea," as used in bills of lading or concerning shipping, mean only
those dangers which are inevitable, and do not excuse the vessel from liability
for loss caused by negligence.^^

§ 4464. Exceptions as to Warranty of Seaworthiness. — Clauses exempt-
ing the shipowner from the general obligation of furnishing a seaworthy ves-
sel must be confined within strict limits, and not to be extended by latitudi-
narian construction or forced implication so as to comprehend a state of
unseaworthiness whether patent or latent, existing at the commencement of
the voyage.-^ ^ A provision of a bill of lading that the ship is not to be answer-
able for loss through any "latent defect in the machinery or hull not resulting
from want of due diligence by the owners" does not cover a condition of un-
seaworthiness existing at the commencement of the voyage, but applies only
to a state of unseaworthiness arising during the voyage.^^ And a stipulation



the A'oyage, and between ports, the ship
encountered a violent hurricane, and by
reason of the rolling and pitching of the
ship the horse was thrown from his stall
and killed. No negligence on the part of
the servants of the company was shown;
the death of the horse appearing to have
resulted from the violence of the storm,
or from the failure to provide grooms and
a proper stall. Held, that the company is
not liable. New England, etc., Steamship
Co. V. Paige, 33 S. E. 969, 108 Ga. 296.

51. Ballast tank buckled.— The Charlton
Hall, 207 Fed. 343, 125 C. C. A. 116.

52. Negligence of carrier or servants. —
Compania De Navigacion La Flecha v.
Brauer, 168 U. S. 104, 42 L. Ed. 398, 18
S. Ct. 12; The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U.
S. 199, 38 L. Ed. 688, 14 S. Ct. 823; Liver-
pool, etc., Co. V. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U.
S. 397, 32 L. Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469; Clark
V. Barnwell (U. S.), 12 How. 272, 13 L.
Ed. 985. See, also. The Portsmouth (U.
S.), 9 Wall. 682, 19 L. Ed. 754; Rich v.
Lambert (U. S.), 12 How. 347, 13 L. Ed.
1017; Northwestern Transp. Co. v. Leiter,
107 Fed. 953, 47 C. C. A. 97.

53. Compania De Navigacion La Flecha
V. Brauer, 18 S. Ct. 12, 168 U. S. 104, 42
L. Ed. 398, affirming decree 66 Fed. 776,
14 C. C. A. 88.

An exception of "perils of the sea" in
a bill of lading docs not relieve the car-
rier from his primary obligation to carry
with reasonable care, unless prevented by
the excepted perils. The G. R. Booth, 171



U. S. 450, 43 L. Ed. 234, 19 S. Ct. 9, com-
menting upon Propeller Mohawk (U. S.),
8 Wall. 153, 19 L. Ed. 406, and The Ports-
mouth (U. S.), 9 Wall. 682, 19 L. Ed. 754.

54. Pettyjohn v. Oregon Coal, etc., Co.,
58 Ore. 392, 113 Pac. 438.

55. Exceptions as to warranty of sea-
worthiness.— The Carib Prince, 170 U. S.
655, 42 L. Ed. 1181, 18 S. Ct. 753; The
Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 39 L. Ed. 64, 15
S. Ct. 537.

56. The Aggi, 107 Fed. 300, 46 C. C. A.
276; The Sandfield, 92 Fed. 663, 34 C. C.
A. 612, affirming decree 79 Fed. 371.

Exceptions in a bill of lading of dam-
age from "latent defects in hull," etc., do
not include unseaworthiness existing at
the inception of the voyage, and at the
time the l^ill of lading was signed, and
resulting from a latent defect in a rivet
in a water tank. The Caledonia, 15 S. Ct.
537, 157 U. S. 124, 39 L. Ed. 644, applied
in The Carib Prince, 15 C. C. A. 385, 68
Fed. 254, reversed in 18 S. Ct. 753, 170
U. S. 655, 42 L. Ed. 1181.

An exception in a charter party from
liability for loss or damage from delays,
steam boilers and machinery or defects
therein operates prospectively only and
does not exempt the ship from liability
for loss caused by unseaworthiness from
a defective shaft, the defect being a latent
one and existing ])efore the commence-
ment of the voyage. The Caledonia, 157
U. S. 124, 39 L. Ed. 644, 15 S. Ct. 537.
Sec The Carib Prince, 170 U. S. 655, 4;J
L. Ed. 1181, 18 S. Ct. 753.



§§ 4464-4465



CARRIERS.



4024



in a bill of lading that the carrier may convey goods in lighters to and from
the ship at the risk of the owner of the goods does not apply to risks arising
out of the unfitness of a lighter."''

Stipulation against Unseaworthiness at Inception of Voyage— Proper
Inspection. — A provision in a ship's bill of lading that the owners should not be
accountable for unseaworthiness of the vessel at the commencement of the voy-
age if all reasonable means had been taken to provide against such unsea-
worthiness will exonerate the owners from liability for such injury, where
proper inspection and repairs had been made before the entering on the voy-
age.^^ Aliter, where such inspection is not made.^^

§ 4465. Exceptions of Loss or Damage Resulting from Negligence
of Carrier. — In General. — By the law before the passage of the Harter Act,
Feb. 13, 1893, ch. 105, 27 Stat. 445, common carriers, by land or sea, could
not, by any form of contract with the owner of property carried, exempt them-
selves from responsibility for loss or damage arising from negligence of their
own servants ; and any stipulation for such exemption w^as contrary to public
policv and void.'^'"^

Carriage at Owner's Risk. — A navigation company is responsible for loss,
by negligence of its servants, of money carried under a stipulation that it is
to be at all times exclusively at the risk of the "shipper." ^^ Where a contract
for the shipment of flour provided that, in consideration of a reduced freight



57. Insurance Co. v. North German
Lloyd Co., 106 Fed. 973, affirmed in 110
Fed. 420. 49 C. C. A. 1.

58. Stipulation against unseaworthiness
at inception of voyage — Proper inspec-
tion. — -A steamer encountered heavy
weather in crossing- the Atlantic, during
which the seams of the ballast tank, which
was constructed of iron plates riveted to-
gether, were sprung, and two rivets were
lost, permitting a leakage into the hold
above, by which a portion of the cargo
was injured. The ship had been surveyed
and her tanks tested prior to the voyage,
and she had been given a certificate of
classification in the highest class. Proper
inspection had been made before enter-
ing on the voyage, and the tanks tested
by pressure and found tight. The leak,
in the opinion of experts, was caused by
the strain of the ship in the heavy weather
during the voyage, and there was no evi-
dence contradicting such opinion or to
show that the rivets lost were in any way
defective in material or workmanship.
Held that, under a bill of lading providing
that the owners should not be account-
able for the unseaworthiness of the ves-
sel at the commencement of the voyage
if all reasonable means had been taken to
provide against such unseaworthiness, the
shipowners would be exonerated from lia-
l)ility for injury to the cargo. The On-
tario, 106 Fed. 324, affirmed in 115 Fed.
769, 53 C. C. A. 199.

59. Sugar in the hold of an iron steam-
ship was damaged by water coming in
through a small hole made by corrosion
of the acid of sugar drainage and sea
water, which reached the plate through
cracks in the lining of Portland cement.
The evidence was insufficient to show that



the cracks were caused by any accident
after sailing. Respondent relied on an
exception in the bill of lading of damage
from unseaworthiness, provided "all rea-
sonable means have been taken" to make
the ship seaworthy. Held, that, in the
inspection prior to the voyage, a failure
to take up one of four ceiling boards in
a passageway over the limber spaces, un-
derneath which the leak occurred, in or-
der to examine the cement, was a lack of
"due diligence" and "reasonable means"
to make the ship seaworthy, and the car-
rier was not exempted under the bill of
lading. The Alvena, 79 Fed. 973, 25 C.
C. A. 261, affirming 74 Fed. 252.

60. Exceptions of loss or damage result-
ing from negligence of carrier. — Com-
pania De Navigacion La Flecha v. Brauer,
168 U. S. 104, 42 L. Ed. 398, 18 S. Ct. 12;
Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co.,
129 U. S. 397, 32 L. Ed. 788, 9 S. Ct. 469,
citing The Lottawanna (U. S.), 21 Wall.
558, 22 L. Ed. 654; The Scotland. 105 U.
S. 24, 26 L. Ed. 1001; The Belgenland, 114
U. S. 355, 29 L. Ed. 152, 5 S. Ct. 860; The
Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 30 L. Ed. 358,
7 S. Ct. 140; New Jersey Steam Nav. Co.
V. Merchants' Bank (U. S.), 6 How. 344,
12 L. Ed. 465; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood
(U. S.), 17 Walk 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; The
Irrawaddy, 171 U. S. 187, 43 L. Ed. 130, 18
S. Ct. 831; Constable v. National Steam-
ship Co., 154 U. S. 51. 38 L. Ed. 903, 14
S. Ct. 1062. See The Kensington, 183 U.
S. 263, 46 L. Ed. 190, 22 S. Ct. 102.

61. Carriage at owner's risk. — New Jer-
sey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank
(U. S.), 6 How. 344. 12 L. Ed. 465; Com-
pania De Navigacion La Flecha v. Brauer,
168 U. S. 104, 42 L. Ed. 398. 18 S. Ct. 12.



4025 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. §§ 4465-4469

rate, the flour was to be carried in open barges at Hbelant's risk, such provi-
sion did not reheve respondent from liabiHty for loss and injury to a part of
the cargo, resulting from respondent's negligent failure, for 16 hours after dis-
covering that the barge on which the flour was being loaded was in a leaking
condition, to take steps to save the cargo from injury.*'-

Stipulation Respecting Liability for Stowage.— A ship is liable for damage
to cargo, resulting from negligence in stowage, or in failing to properly cover
a hatch _ to prevent leakage, notwithstanding any stipulations to the contrary
in the bills of lading.^'^

What Law Governs. — See ante, "What Law Governs," § 4450.
Limiting Amount of Liability to Specified Sum.— See post, "Limitation
of Amount of Damages," § 4476.

§ 4466. Fire. — A shipowner may limit his common-law liability for fire
by special stipulations in the bill of lading,c-i and he can in this way extend his
statutory exemption from fires to such as occur after the discharge of the
cargo.^^ A provision in a bill of lading that, if the articles named therein shall
be conveyed in part by water, they shall "be subject to all customary condi-
tions of same," does not exempt the carrier from loss by fire, on the ground
that in contracts for transportation of goods there is a well-established usage
for exemptions covering loss by fire, unless it be shown that the custom is
reasonable, uniform, well settled, not in opposition to fixed rules of law, nor
in contradiction of the express terms of the contract.*^*^

§ 4467. Stowage on Deck. — Where, in an action by a shipper against a car-
rier for loss of oil clothing shipped under a bill of lading providing that in-
flammable goods might be transported on deck and should be at the shipper's
risk, the evidence showed a custom to treat oil clothing as inflammable, and
when carried by water to transport it on deck, the carrier was not liable for
the loss of the goods in consequence of the same being washed overboard.*'"''

§ 4468. Loss Through Leakage. — Stipulations in a bill of lading against
liability for loss or damage to cargo through leakage do not exempt the ship-
owner from liability for damage caused by seawater which enters through the
deck by reason of its defective condition, which renders the vessel unseaworthy
for the particular voyage and cargo. ^^

§ 4469. Risk of Due Refrigeration. — A carrier by water, who accepts a
cargo of frozen meat for transportation across the ocean, impliedly contracts
that his vessel is provided with suitable and efficient apparatus to enable him to
■deliver the cargo in proper condition but it is competent for the parties, by
express contract, to stipulate for the exemption of the carrier from liability

62. California Nav., etc., Co. v. Stock- Agreement exacted by collector of cus-
toii MilL Co., 184 Fed. 369, 107 C. C. A. toms.— Constable v. National Steamship
46, affirmins- judgment 165 Fed. 356. Co., 154 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S.

63. Stipulation respecting liability for Ct. 1062.

stowage.— The Mississippi, 120 Fed. 1020, 65. Constable v. National Steamship

56 C. C. .'\. 525, affirming decree, 113 Fed. Co., 154 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 S.

985. Ct. 1062.

64. Fire. — Constable v. National Steam- 66. Robinson v. New York, etc., Steam-
ship Co., 154 U. S. 51, 38 L. Ed. 903, 14 ship Co., 74 N. Y. S. 384, 36 Misc. Rep.
S. Ct. 1062, citing York Co. v. Central 705, affirmed in 78 N. Y. S. 359, 75 App.
Railroad (U. S.), 3 Wall. 107. 18 L. Ed. Div. 431, 69 N. E. 1130. 177 N. Y. 565.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 171 of 214)