Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 174 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 174 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


1150; The Scotland, 118 U. S. 507, 30 L.
Ed. 153, 6 S. Ct. 1174; Butler v. Boston,
etc., Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L
Ed. 1017, 9 S. Ct. 612; In re Morrison,
147 U. S. 14, 37 L. Ed. 60, 13 S. Ct. 246;
Oregon R.,* etc., Co. v. Balfour, 179 U.
S. 5^5, 45 L. Ed. 82, 21 S. Ct. 28; The
Lottawanna (U. S.), 21 Wall. 558, 22 L.
Ed. 654; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Penn-
sylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 36 L. Ed. 672,
12 S. Ct. 806.

The fourth section of the Act of June
17, 1886, extending the Act of March,
1851, to all vessels is constitutional. In
re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L. Ed. 631, 11
S. Ct. 840.

33. Part of maritime law. — In re Gar-
nett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L Ed. 631, llS. Ct.
840; Butler v. Boston, etc.. Steamship Co.,
130 U. S. 527, 32 L Ed. 1017, 9 S. Ct.
612; Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. S.), 13
Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585; The Lottawanna
(U. S.), 21 Wall. 558, 22 L Ed. 654; The
Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 26 L. Ed. 1001;
Providence, etc.. Steamship Co. v. Hill
Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L Ed. 1038,.
3 S. Ct. 379, 617; Oregon R., etc., Co. v.
Balfour, 179 U. S. 55, 45 L. Ed. 82, 21
S. Ct. 28; Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U.
S. 96, 56 L. Ed. 110, 32 S. Ct. 27, follow-
ing Butler V. Boston, etc., Steamship Co.,.
130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017, 9 S. Ct.
612.

34. The Scotland. 105 U. S. 24, 26 L.
Ed. 1001; Butler v. Boston, etc.. Steam-
ship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017,
9 S. Ct. 612. See, to the same effect. The
Lottawanna (U. S.), 21 Wall. 558, 22 L..
Ed. 654.



4037



LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY.



§§ 4497-4498



"An act to provide for the better security of life on board of vessels propelled
in whole or in part by steam, and for other purposes," 16 Stat. 440,^-'' by the
Act of June 26, 1884, 1 Supp. Rev. St. 440,3« by the Hepburn Act,^' nor by the
Employer's Liability Act of April 22, 1908.38

§ 4498. Construction. — The supreme court of the United States at first
said that the Limited Liability Act should be strictly construed, since its effect is
to take away or abridge the right of recovering damages at the common law ^^
but later it said : "The practical value of the law will largely depend on the
manner in which it is administered. If the courts having the execution of it
administer it in a spirit of fairness, with the view of giving to shipowners the
full benefit of the immunities intended to be secured by it, the encouragement
it will afford to commercial operations (as before stated) will be of the last
importance; but, if it is administered with a tight and grudging hand, con-
struing every clause most unfavorably against the shipowner, and allowing as
little as possible to operate in his favor, the law will hardly be worth the
trouble of its enactment." ^^

Acts in Pari Materia.— Section 18 of Act June 26, 1889 (23 Stat. 57, c. 121
[U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2945]), which provides that "the individual liability
of a shipowner shall be limited to the proportion of any or all debts and liabil-
ities that his individual share of the vessel bears to the whole ; and the aggre-
gate liabilities of all the owners of a vessel on account of the same shall not
exceed the value of such vessel and freight pending," and Rev. St., § 4283 [U.
S. Comp. vSt., 1901, p. 2943], are in pari materia, and to be construed together.
The provision of the older act by which the limitation of liability therein pro-
vided for is confined to things "done, occasioned or incurred without the priv-
ity of knowledge of such owner or owners," also qualifies the latter act, which
was not intended to apply to liabilities of the owners of vessels for the conse-
quences of their personal faults or upon obligations personally contracted by
them .41



35. Effect of subsequent acts. — Butler
V. Boston, etc., Steamship Co., 130 U. S.
527, 32 L. Ed. 1017, 9 S. Ct. 612.

36. Section 18 of the Act of June 26,
1884 (23 Stat., at L. 53-57, ch. 121, U. S.
Comp. Stat., 1901, 2804, 2945, operates as
an amendment of the existing law, and
not at a repeal of the qualifications found
in that law. "This is the view adopted by
three circuit courts of appeal, in the cases
of The Republic, 9 C. C. A. 386, 61 Fed.
109, in the second circuit. The Annie
Faxon, 21 C. C. A. 366, 75 Fed. 312, in
the ninth circuit, and in Great Lakes
Towing Co. V. Mill Transp. Co.. 22 L.
R. A., N. S., 769, 83 C. C. A. 607, 155 Fed.
11, in the sixth circuit, as well as by a
number of district courts, among them
being the case of The Amos D. Carver,
35 Fed. 665, and In re Meyer, 74 Fed.
881." Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S.
96, 56 L. Ed. 110, 32 S. Ct. 27.

Rev. St., § 4493, making exceptions, in
favor of passengers, from the rule of lim-
itation of liability of a shipowner under
Rev. St., §§ 4283, 4289, is not repealed
by Act June 26, 1884 (1 Supp. Rev. St.
440). The Annie Faxon, 75 Fed. 312, 21
C. C. A. 366, modifying decree, 66 Fed.
575.



37. Hepburn Act. — Hepburn Act Feb.
4, 1887, c. 104, § 1, 24 Stat. 379 (U. S.
Comp. St.. 1901, p. 3154), does not repeal
Rev. St., U. S. §§ 4482-4289 (U. S. Comp.
St., 1901, pp. 2943, 2945), relating to limi-
tation of liability. The Hoffmans, 171
Fed. 455.

38. Employer's Liability Act April 22,
1908, does not by implication repeal the
statutory provisions permitting shipown-
ers to limit their liability, as applied to
actions for injuries to employees on a
vessel operated by a railroad company
as part of its interstate line, nor affect
tlie right of the company to maintain
proceedings for such limitation in a court
of admiralty. The Passaic, 204 Fed. 266,
122 C. C. A. 466, affirming decree, 190
Fed. 644.

39. The Main v. Williams, 152 U. S.
122, 38 L. Ed. 381, 14 S. Ct. 486.

40. La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L.
Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664, following Provi-
dence, etc.. Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg.
Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed. 1038, 3 S.
Ct. 379, 617.

41. Acts in pari materia. — Great Lakes
Towing Co. V. W\\\ Transp. Co., 155 Fed.
11, 83 C. C. A. 607, 22 L. R. A., N. S.,
769.



§§ 4499-4500 carriers. 4038

§§ 4499-4505. Losses Covered — § 4499. Loss or Damage to Jew-
elry, Precious Metals, Moneys, etc. — The second section, 4281, Rev. Stat.,
of the Act of March 3, 1851, exempts the owner and master from liabiHty for
loss or damage to jewelry, precious metals, or money, etc., put on board the
ship, unless its character and value be disclosed in writing.'^ 2 -q^^ ^i-,jg statute
does not apply to a case where a passenger took such of her jewelry as she
was accustomed to wear aboard, and was robbed thereof before she succeeded
in depositing it with the purser, without any fault on her part.'*-^

§ 4500. Loss or Damage by Fire. — The first section of the Limited Lia-
bihty Act, § 4282, Rev. Stat., exempts the shipowner from loss or damage by
fire to goods on board the ship, unless caused by his own design or neglect.'*'*
The case of loss and damage by fire on board of a ship is also within the pro-
visions of the third and fourth sections of the act of 1851, although provided
for by § 1, of the act.'*^ Personal participation of owner in negligence essen-
tial to liability in order to make the owner of a vessel, in case of loss by fire,
liable for negligence, it must, under the first section of the Limited LiabiHty
Act, § 4282, Rev. Stat., appear that the owner had directly participated in the
negligence. The exception does not extend to the officers and crews of the
vessel, as representing the owners.'*^'

Special Contracts and Usage. — Originally the act contained a proviso that
the parties may make such contract between themselves on the subject as they
please.'*'^ This proviso referred to express contracts."*^ Hence a local custom
that shipowners shall be liable in such cases for the negligence of their agents,
is not a good custom ; being directly opposed to the statute*^ And so a special
contract claimed to be founded on usage will not take the case out of the Act
of 1851.50

Loss by Fire While Goods in Warehouse. — Rev. St., U. S., § 4282, exempt-
ing vessel owners from liability for loss of or damage to goods by fire happen-
ing to or on board of the vessel, is limited in its application to fires on ship-
board, and has no application to loss of goods by fire while in a warehouse. ^^

Effect of Stipulation in Bill of Lading for Carriage by Rail and Water.
— See ante, "Construction. Operation and ElTt'ect," §§ 455-513; "Operation and
Efifect Generally." §§ 4452-4455.

42. Loss or damage to jewelry, pre- Co. z'. Wright (U. S.), 13 Wall. 104, 20
cious metals, moneys, etc. — Norwich Co. L. Ed. 585; Providence, etc.. Steamship
V. Wright (U. S.), 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578. 27
Ed. 585. L. Ed. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617; Ex parte

43. Personal jewelry.— Rev. St.. § 4281 Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. 8. 610, 30 L. Ed.
[U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2942], providing 274, 7 S. Ct. 25: Moore v. American
that, if any shipper of jewelry, etc., con- Transp. Co. (U. S.), 24 How. 1, 16 L.
tained in any parcel or package or trunk Ed. 674; Walker v. Transportation Co.
shall take the same as freight or bag- (U. S.). 3 Wall. 150, 18 L. Ed. 172.
gage on any vessel without giving writ- 45. Providence, etc., Steamship Co. v.
ten notice of its character and value, and Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed.
having the same entered on the bill of 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379. 617.

lading, the shipowner shall not be liable 46. Walker v. Transportation Co. (U.

as, carrier, is intended to apply where S.), 3 Wall. 150, 18 L. Ed. 172; Craig V.

such goods are received from a shipper Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 35 L.

by a carrier for transportation in the Ed. 886, 12 S. Ct. 97.

usual course of business, and does not 47. Special contracts and usage. —

relieve a shipowner from liability for Moore v. American Transp. Co. (U. S.),

jewelry worn and carried on board by a 24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674.

woman passenger with the intention of 48. Walker v. Transportation Co. (U.

placing it in the custody of the purser, S.), 3 Wall. 150, 18 L. Ed. 172.

as permitted by the rules of the ship, but 49. Walker v. Transportation Co. (U.

which was stolen by an employee of the S.), 3 Wall. 150, IS L. Ed. 172.

ship before she had the opportunity to 50. Walker v. Transportation Co. (U.

do so. Decree, 132 Fed. 52. affirmed in S.), 3 Wall. 150. 18 L. Ed. 172.

The Minnetonka. 146 Fed. 509, 77 C. C. 51. Loss by fire while goods in ware-

A. 217. house.— Black v. Ashley, 44 N. W. 1120,

44. Loss or damage by fire.— rNorwich 80 Mich. 90.



4039



LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY.



§§ 4501-4502



§§ 4501-4505. Loss or Damage for Which Liability Limited to Value
of Vessel and Pending- Freight — § 4501. Maritime and Nonmaritime
Torts Generally. — L'nder the original law of limited responsibility of ship-
owners the owners are not to be liable beyond their interest in the ship and
freight for the acts of the master or crew, done without their privity or knowl-
edge. It extended to liability for every kind of maritime tort, loss, damage
and injury.^- Section 4283, Rev. Stat., the third section, limits the ship-
owners liability in three classes of damage or wrong-happening without their
privity, and by the fault or neglect of the master or other persons on board,"^
viz : First in cases of embezzlement ^^ or loss or damage to goods on board ; ^^
second, damage by collision to other vessels and their cargoes ; ^^ third, any
other damage or forfeiture done or incurred ; to an amount not exceeding the
value of the vessel and freight then pending.*^"

Nonmaritime Torts. — The limitation of a shipowners liability for maritime
torts not the result of his own fault, provided by Rev. St., §§ 4283-4285
(U. S. Comp. St., 1901, pp. 2943, 29-14), was extended to nonmaritime torts
by the provisions of Act June 26, 1884, c. 121, § 18, 23 Stat. 57 (U. S. Comp.
St., 1901, p. 2945), limiting the individual liability of a shipowner for "any
or all debts and liabilities," except wages and liabilities incurred prior to such
enactment, to his share in the vessel, and the aggregate liabilities of all the
owners of a vessel on account of the same to the value of the vessel and freight
pending."^

§ 4502. Obligations Ex Contractu. — The Limited Liability Act, as orig-
inally enacted, did not include the owner's individual liability for obligations
ex contractu incurred without his knowledge or privity. ^^ But §§ 4283 and
4284, Rev. Stat., as amended by the 18th section of the act of June 26, 1884
(23 Stat, at L. 57, chap. 121, U. S. Comp. Stat., 1901, p. 2945), include "any
or all debts and liabilities" of the owner, incurred on account of the ship, with-
out his privity or fault.*^*'



52. Maritime and nonmaritime torts
generally. — "In Butler v. Boston, etc.,
Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed.
1017, 9 S. Ct. 612, the words 'the liability
of the owner * * * shall in no case
exceed,' etc., were construed as extend-
ing to any liability 'for any act, matter,
or loss, damage or forfeiture, done or in-
curred;' and as therefor providing that
the 'owner shall not be liable beyond his
interest in the ship and freight for the
acts of the master or crew, done without
his privity or knowledge.' " Richardson
V. Harmon, 222 U. S. 96, 56 L. Ed. 110,
32 S. Ct. 27.

53. Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. S.), 13
Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585.

54. Embezzlement. — Moore v. Ameri-
can Transp. Co. ( U. S.), 24 How. 1, 16 L.
Ed. 674.

55. Loss or damage to goods on board.
—Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. S.), 13
Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585.

56. See post, "Collision," § 4503.

57. Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. vS.), 13
Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585; Moore v. Amer-
ican Transp. Co. (U. S.), 24 How. I, 16
L. Ed. 674.

58. Nonmaritime torts. — Richardson v.
Harmon, 222 U. vS. 96, 56 L. Ed. 110, 32
S. Ct. 27.



"The case of Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co.,
118 U. S. 610, 30 L. Ed. 274, 7 S. Ct. 25,
which was a petition for the benefits of
the Limited Liability Act and to stay
suits at common law against the owner
for liability by fire carried to buildings
on land, communicated from the ship,
has l^een cited as holding that the limited
liability statute did not apply to such a
claim, and that a court of admiralty could
not draw to itself jurisdiction over any
such claim. But that liability was in-
curred on September 20, 1880, a date an-
tecedent to the Act of 1884, which act
expressly excluded liabilities which arose
before its passage. That the decision by
this court was not made until November,
1886, and that the opinion makes no ref-
erence to the Act of 1884, is of no im-
portance, since the act had no applica-
tion." Richardson v. Harmon. 222 U. S.
96. 56 L. Ed. 110. 32 S. Ct. 27.

59. Obligations ex contractu. — Richard-
son z: Harmon, 222 U. S. 9(), 56 L. Ed.
no, 32 S. Ct. 27.

60. Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S.
96. 56 L. Ed. 110, 32 S. Ct. 27; The San
Pedro, 223 U. S. 365, 56 L. Ed. 473, 32
S. Ct. 275, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1221.

"The legislation is in pari materia with
the Act of 1S51 (9 Stat., at L. 635, chap.



§§ 4502-4503



CARRIERS.



4040



Personal Contracts of Part Owner. — A vessel owner is not entitled to
limit his liability upon his own personal contracts,^^ but only for contracts
made by the master or other agent on the credit of the ship.**- Thus the stat-
ute does not apply so as to exempt a part owner from full liability for supplies
purchased by his authority, or with his knowledge and consent, "^^ or for serv-
ices rendered in pursuance of a contract for towing and wrecking services "'^"^
entered into by a part owner of the vessel.

§ 4503. Collision.— The third division of § 4283, Rev. Stat., limits the ship-
owner's liability for damage by collision to other vessels and their cargoes,
where the collision occurred without their privity, to an amount not exceeding
value of the vessel and freight then pending.^^



43, § 3), as carried into the Revised Stat-
utes as § 4283, et seq. (U. S. Comp. Stat.,
1901, p. 2943), and must be read in con-
nection with that law; and so read, should
be given such an effect not incongruous
with that law, so far as consistent with
the terms of the later legislation. The
former law embraced liabilities for mar-
itime torts, but excluded both debts and
liabilities for nonmaritime torts. The
section under consideration includes debts,
save wages of seamen and liabilities of
an owner incurred prior to the passage of
the law. The avowed purpose of the
original act was to encourage American
investments in ships. This was accom-
plished by confining the owner's individ-
ual liability, when not the result of his
own fault, in the instances enumerated,
to his share in the ship. The same public
policy is declared to be the motive of the
act of which this section is a part. True,
a liability may arise out of a contract as
well as from a tort. But a liability ex
contractu is included ex vi termini, and
the addition of the words 'and liabilities'
would be tautology unless meant to em-
brace liabilities not arising from 'debts.' "
Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S. 96, 56
L. Ed. 110, 32 S. Ct. 27.

61. Personal contracts of part owner.
—The Loyal, 204 Fed. 930, 123 C. C. A.
252, affirming decree 198 Fed. 591.

Act Cong. June 26, 1884, c. 121, § 18,
23 Stat. 57 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2945),
limiting the individual liability of a ship-
owner to the proportion of debts that his
share of the vessel bears to the whole,
does not apply to a case where persons
are not sought to be charged as shipown-
ers, but only upon a personal contract.
Richardson Fueling Co. v. Seymour, 85
N. E. 496, 235 111. 319.

1 Supp. U. S. Rev. St., 1874-91, p. 443,
§ 18, limiting the individual liability of
shipowners to the proportion of the ship
owned by them, restricts the liability im-
posed on them by law as the result of
such ownership, and does not limit their
liability on contracts made by them.
Kerry v. Pacific Marine Co., 54 Pac. S9,
121 Cal. 564, 66 Am. St. Rep. 65, modified
54 Pac. 262.

62. The Loyal, 198 Fed. 591.



63. Act June 26, 1884, c. 121, § 18, 23
Stat. 57 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2945],
which provides that "the individual lia-
bility of a shipowner shall be limited to
the proportion of any or all debts and
liabilities that his individual share of the
vessel bears to the whole," is to l)e con-
strued in connection with the Limited Lia-
bility Act of 1851 (Rev. St., § 4283 [U. S.
Comp. St., 1901, p. 2943]), and does not
apply to personal contracts, so as to ex-
empt a part owner from full liability for
supplies purchased by his authority, or
with his knowledge and consent. Ru-
dolf V. Brown, 137 Fed. 106.

64. Towing and salvage contract. — A
towing company entered into a contract
with the managing agent of petitioner,
which was the owner of certain vessels
on the Great Lakes, by which it agreed
to perform all towing and wrecking serv-
ice required by such vessels during the
season at certain stated prices. One of
petitioner's vessels having stranded, the
towing company was called on pursuant
to said contract, and sent a tug with
wrecking apparatus to the assistance of
such vessel, where it spent several days
in pumping and attempting to get her
afloat, but unsuccessfully, and she was
lost. Held, that section 18 of Act June
26, 1884 (23 Stat. 57, c. 121 [U. S. Comp.
St., 1901, p. 2945]), did not entitle peti-
tioner to a limitation of liability for the
services so rendered by the towing com-
pany under its contract to the value of
the salvage recovered from the wreck.
Great Lakes Towing Co. v. Mill Transp.
Co., 155 Fed. 11, 83 C. C. A. 607, 22 L.
R. A., N. S.. 769.

65. Collision. — La Bourgogne, 210 U. S.
95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664; The Bal-
timore (U. S.). 8 Wall. 377, 19 L. Ed.
463; Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.),
21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41; The Atlas, 93
U. S. 302. 23 L. Ed. 863; Norwich Co. v.
Wright (U. S.), 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed.
585; Butler v. Boston, etc.. Steamship Co.,
130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017, 9 S. Ct.
612; Moore v. American Transp. Co. (U.
S.), 24 How. 1. 16 L. Ed. 674; The
Wanata, 95 U. S. 600, 24 L. Ed. 461; The
Cayuga (U. S.), 14 Wall. 270, 20 L. Ed.
828.



4041 LIMITATIONS OF ^ABILITY. § 4503

In cases of collision, where both vessels were in fault, the statute of
limited liability applies for the claim for one-half the difference between the
respective losses of the two vessels, the obligation to pay that difference being
the legal liability arising from the collision. The damage done to both vessels
should be added together in one sum, and equally divided, and a decree should
be pronounced in favor of the vessel which suffered most against the one
which suffered least, for half the difference between the amounts of their re-
spective losses. ^'^ The owners sustaining the greater loss can not under the
Limited Liability Act claim entire exoneration from liability, and have a de-
cree for half of their damage, without deducting the damage to the other ves-
sel. ^'^ In such case the statute of limited liability is not to be applied until the
balance of damage has been struck ; and then the party against whom the de-
cree passes may, if otherwise entitled, have the benefit of the statute in respect
of the balance, which he is decreed to pay.^^

How Damage Estimated — Items Included. — Subject to that provision in
the act of congress, the damages which the owner of the injured vessel is en-
titled to recover are estimated in the same manner as in other suits of like na-
ture for injuries to personal property, and the owner, as the suffering party, is
not limited to compensation for the immediate effects of the injury inflicted,
but the claim for compensation may extend to loss of freight, necessary ex-
pense incurred in making repairs, and unavoidable detention. ^9

Amount of Bond and Interest. — Where one-half the difference between the
amounts of the respective losses of two vessels, both being at fault for colli-
sion, is more than the amount of the bond given by the vessel decreed limita-
tion of liability, with interest at six per cent per annum from date of the de-
cree, it is proper for the court to decree as damages to the other vessel the
amount of the bond with such interest.'^*^

Interest on Amount Salvaged from Offending Ship. — Where a collision
occurred by which the offending ship and her cargo were sunk at sea, but
strippings from the ship were rescued before she went down, from which the
owner afterwards realized several thousand dollars, held, that in awarding
damages against the owner, limited to the amount of their interest in the ship,

66. The North Star, 106 U. S. 17, 27 L. half the value of the sunken schooner, and

Ed. 91, 1 S. Ct. 41; The Manitoba, 122 to limit a recovery to the, "difference be-

U. S. 97, 30 L. Ed. 1095, 7 S. Ct. 1158; tween the values."

The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540, 43 L. This is in effect extending the doctrine

Ed. 801, 19 S. Ct. 491. of The Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 40 L. Ed.

In The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540, 771, 16 S. Ct. 516, wherein the question

43 L. Ed. 801, 19 S. Ct. 491, which was a of liability for the loss of the cargo was

collision occasioned by the mutual fault not in issue, to one where the vessel suf-

of a steamer and a schooner, followed by fering the greater injury is also the car-

a total loss of the latter, the survivor was rier of the cargo. The Chattahoochee,

permitted to deduct from one half of the 173 U. S. 540, 43 L. Ed. 801, 19 S. Ct.

damages recovered for the loss of the 491.

vessel one half of the value of the cargo 67. The North Star, 106 U. S. 17, 27 L.

of the latter, notwithstanding the total Ed. 91, T S. Ct. 41. See The Chattahoo-

loss of the schooner, and the fact that un- chee. 173 U. S. 540, 43 L. Ed. 801, 19 S.

der the Harter Act she would not have Ct. 491.

been liable to the owner of the cargo for 68. The North Star, 106 U. S. 17, 27
negligence in navigation. It was held in L. Ed. 91, 1 S. Ct. 41. See The Chatta-
that case that the sunken vessel was not hoochee, 173 U. S. 540, 43 L. Ed. 801, 19
entitled to the benefit of any statute tend- S. Ct. 491; The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 97.
ing to lessen its liability to the other ves- 30 L. V.d. 1095, 7 S. Ct. 1158.
sel, or to an increase of the burden of sucli 69. How damage estimated — Items in-
other vessel, until the amount of such eluded. — The Baltimore (U. S.), 8 Wall,
liability had been fixed upon the princi- .■'.77. 10 L. Ed. 463; The Cayuga (U. S.),
pie of an equal division of damages. Tiic 14 Wall. 270, 20 L. Ed. S28.



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 174 of 214)