TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The President Arthur

The President Arthur, 28 F.2d 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
August 2, 1928
Judges
Thacher
Citations
28 F.2d 3911928 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1490

Opinion of the Court — Thacher

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

On Exceptions to Report of Special Commissioner.

THACHER, District Judge.

Upon the question of deviation I concur with the commissioner in holding that decision is controlled by The Willdomino, 272 U. S. 718 , 47 S. Ct. 261 , 71 L. Ed. 491 , notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in The Malcolm Baxter (No. 459, October Term, 1927) 48 S. Ct. 516 , 72 L. Ed. 901 , decided a few days before the commissioner rendered his decision. In this ease, as in the case of The Willdomino, the ship left port with bunker coal grossly inadequate for the voyage, and this fact must have been known to her responsible officers before sailing. The deviation to Halifax cannot, therefore, be regarded as involuntary. The emergency which required deviation arose either from gross negligence or deliberate intention in failing to take on board sufficient bunker coal for the voyage.

As to the question of damage, the measure is the difference between the market value of the cargo at the time and place of delivery, in such condition as it would have arrived, but for the carrier’s fault, and its market value in the condition in which, by reason of such fault, it did arrive, with interest to the time of delivery. U. S. S. Co. v. Haskins (C. C. A.) 181 F. 962 ; St. John’s Corp. v. Companhia General, etc., 263 U. S. 119, 125 , 44 S. Ct. 30 , 68 L. Ed. 201 ; U. S. S. B., etc., v. Rosenberg Bros. Co. (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 721, 723 . The commissioner computed the damages upon this basis, and his computation is supported by uneontradieted testimony regarding market values of the onions in good and in damaged condition. The bags of onions which were only slightly damaged were sold in the condition in which they were delivered. As to the balance the shippers separated the good onions from the bad, and threw away the bad ones. What was left was put into stock, and mixed with better onions, and thereafter sold.

These sales of mixed lote cannot be said to have mitigated the damages recoverable under the general rule. The libelants were entitled to receive onions in good condition. They got bad ones, and have been damaged to the extent of the difference in market value. What the libelants did with the onions after they got them is of no concern to the carrier, so long as the damages have been correctly computed upon actual market values. When goods are sold in their condition when received, the sale is often the best evidence of market value, and therefore necessarily limits recovery; but in this case the onions were not sold in their damaged condition, but were reconditioned and sold with other onions of better quality. Such sales cannot determine the market value of the onions in the condition in which they were delivered. It follows that the general rule must apply.

The exceptions to the commissioner’s report are overruled, the report is confirmed, and decree is directed accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11934: 11942: 11958: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Weirton Steel Co. v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co.126 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1942)
  2. Lucke v. Coe69 F.2d 379 (D.C. Cir. 1934)
  3. Manhattan Fruit Export Corp. v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co.175 F. Supp. 771 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)
  4. Connecticut Fire Ins. v. Lake Transfer Corp.5 F. Supp. 416 (E.D.N.Y. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Manhattan Fruit Export Corp. v. Royal Netherlands Steamship Co.175 F. Supp. 771 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)
  2. Weirton Steel Co. v. Isbrandtsen-Moller Co.126 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1942)
  3. Lucke v. Coe69 F.2d 379 (D.C. Cir. 1934)
  4. Connecticut Fire Ins. v. Lake Transfer Corp.5 F. Supp. 416 (E.D.N.Y. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
St. Johns N. F. Shipping Corp. v. S. A. Companhia Geral Commercial Do Rio De Janeiro, 263 U.S. 119 (1923) 126
S.S. Willdomino v. Citro Chem. Co., 272 U.S. 718 (1927) 95
The Malcolm Baxter, Jr., 277 U.S. 323 (1928) 78
United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Rosenberg Bros., 12 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1926) 15
United S. S. Co. v. Haskins, 181 F. 962 (9th Cir. 1910) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list