Abbildungen der Seite

10. Where the suit in the State Court 5. When a question arises as to the

is commenced by summons, and the condition of the contents of such
attachment is subsequently issued by casks, in a case where such a clause
it, as a separate process, such attachi- is found in the bill of lading, the bur-
ment is not an attachment by original den rests on the shipper, in the first
process, within said 12th section, so instance, to prove the condition of the
as to hold the property attached, after goods at the time of shipment; and,
the removal of the suit into this in the absence of such proof, the car-

id. rier is not properly chargeable for the

condition of such contents. id.

3, 4.

6. If the external covering of the goods
PARTIES TO Actions, 6.

is damaged when they are delivered,
so as to account for an injury to the

contents, the evidence may be dis-

pensed with, the admission in the bill

of lading being prima facie sufficient.

1. Where the printed form of a bill of

lading of cotton contained, added at

SHIPPING, 1, 22, 30.
the bottom with a pen, the words,

contents and weight unknown," the
freight to be paid at a certain rate per

pound: Held that, although some

figures were found in the margin of
the bill of lading, apparently as the
aggregate weight of the cotton, yet
the shipper was bound to pay freight

only on the actual weight of the cot-
ton. The Andover,




2. Held, also, that the vessel was liable

in Admiralty for the value of a part
of the cotton, detained under a lien
for the freight, after the shipper had
offered to pay freight on the actual
weight of the cotton, as soon as it
should be ascertained.


See SHIPPING, 26, 27.



3. The proper mode of proving the exe-
cution of a bill of lading, considered.

The Columbo,


See COLLECTOR, 7 to 23.
4. Where a bill of lading acknowledged

the receipt, in good order and con.
dition, of casks containing bristles,

which were covered with matting,
and well secured by cords around the 1. In order to charge a carrier for the
body and ends, and engaged to deliv- non-delivery of goods, some evidence
er them in like good order and condi- of their non-delivery must be given
tion to the consignees, and also con. by the shipper or owner; but, slight
tained the clause,“ weight and con- evidence will be sufficient to throw
tents unknown: Held, that there upon the carrier the burden of show-
was no admission by the master, in ing the delivery. The Falcon, 64
the bill of lading, as to the condition
of the goods, beyond that visible to 2. Where the bill of lading of goods
the eye, or apparent from handling specified that they were to be deliv.
the casks or their outside protection. ered to L. or Z. : Held, in an action

id. against the carrier for their non-

delivery, that it was not enough for delivering it, and the master over-
the shipper to show the non-delivery loaded the wharf, so that it broke
to L., but that he must also give some down, and a portion of the iron was
evidence of the non-delivery to Z. id. totally lost : Held, that the owner of

the vessel was responsible to the con-
3. Where A., at Oswego, shipped flour signee for the loss, on a libel in Ad-

to B. at New York, through the canal, miralty in the District Court, the con-
subject to charges for freight through signee having made advances on the
Lake Ontario, and chargeable with consignment.

specified freight from Oswego to New
York, and wrote on the bill of lading, See AssTMPSIT, 4.
“Pay charges to C. on safe delivery,'

and D., a canal forwarder at Oswego,

SHIPPING, 29, 30.
receipted the bill of lading thus, “ Re-
ceived in good order for C.," and C.,
a forwarder from Albany to New
York, received the flour at Albany

in apparent good order, and paid the
charges for freight through Lake On. 1. In re Kaine, (14 How., 103, 129.)
tario, and the freight from Oswego to Ex parte Kaine,

Albany, and carried the flour to New
York, and delivered it to B., and it ap: 2. St. John v. Paine, (10 How., 557.)
peared that the flour had been damaged The Northern Indiana,

by wet before it arrived at Albany :
Held, that, as 0. had no interest in, or
connection with either the lake or

3. The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitz-

the canal navigation, and merely re-

hugb, (12 How., 443.)
ceived the flour at Albany and trans-
ported it to New York, he was not 4. Goddard v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 131.)
answerable for either the carrier on Sadler v. Maxwell, 134, and Vaccari
the lake or on the canal, and was not

v. Maxwell,

responsible for the damage to the flour.
Monteith v. Kirkpatrick,

279 5. Griswold v. Lawrence, (1 Blatchf. C.

C. R., 346.) Griswold v. Maxwell, 145
4. Held, also, that C. was entitled to re-

cover from B. the charges which he 6. Wilder v. Gayler, (1 Blatchf. C. C. R.,
paid at Albany, when he received the 597.) Day v. The New-England Car-
flour, it appearing that the advance Spring Co.,

was made according to the established
usage in shipping goods from Oswego 7. Evans v. Eaton, (3 Wheat., 454.) id.
to New York.


8. Grant v. Raymond, (6 Pet., 218.) id.
5. Such advance became chargeable on

the goods the same as the freight
from Albany to New York, and the 9. O'Reilly v. Morse, (15 How., 62.)
whole claim became an entirety, capa-

The American Pin Co. v. The Oak.
ville Co.,

ble of being enforced by C., by a libel
against B., in the District Court. id.

10. Russell v. Cowley, (Webster's Patent
h. The master of a vessel is bound not Cases, 467.) McCormick v. Seymonr,
only to select a customary wharf for

the delivery of a cargo carried on
freight, but the place selected must 11. Lapsley v. The United States Ins.
be fit and safe for its deposit, and it

Co., (4 Binney, 602.) Griswold v.
must be discharged with all proper

The Union Mutual Ins. Co., 231
care and skill.
Vose v. Allen, 289

12. Astley v. Reynolds, (2 Strange, 915.)
7. Where the consignee of a cargo of

Tult v. Ide,

iron shipped on freight refused to
have any thing to do with its delivery 13. Roller v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 142.)
at the wharf where the master was McCall v. Lawrence,



14. Lennig v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 125.)

Munseli v. Maxwell,


1. A Commissioner appointed by this
15. Morris v. Maxwell, (ante, 143.)

Court is, in the execution of the du-
Vaccari v. Maxwell,


ties of his office under the Act of

September 18th, 1850, (9 U. S. Stat.
16. Dorr v. Swartwout, (1 Blatchf. C. C.

at Large, 462), commonly called the
R., 179.) Richardson v. Curtis, 885

Fugitive Slave Act, in no legal sense
a magistrate inferior to this Court.
Ex parte Van Orden,

17. Lawrence v. Caswell, (13 How.,
488.) Schuchardt v. Lawrence, 397 2. This Court has no power to issue a

writ of certiorari to such a Commis.
18. Craig v. Maxwell, (2 Blatchf. C. C. sioner, to review proceedings before
R., 545.) Alsop v. Maxwell, 399 himn under that Act.



19. Pierson v. Maxwell, (2 Blatchf. C. C.
R., 507.) Crowley v. Maxwell, 401

20. Cornett v. Lawrence, (2 Blatchf. C.

See Trust, 1.
C. R., 512.)

21. Focke v. Lawrence, (2 Blatchf. C. C.

R., 508.)

1. The charter-party of a vessel provi.
22. Thomson v. Maxwell, (2 Blatchf. C. ded that the whole of it, except the
C. R., 385.)


part necessary for the officers and

crew, and for stowing sails, cables,
23. Howland v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 146.) and provisions, should be at the dis-
Carnes v. Maxwell,

420 posal of the charterer for a specific

voyage. The charterer agreed to fur-
24. Corkle v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 413.) nish a full cargo of lumber and tim-
Harriman v. Maxwell,

421 ber for the voyage, at a specified

price per thousand feet. After the
25. Crowley v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 401.) vessel had received part of her car-

id. go, the charterer desired to put on

board two pieces of timber that were
26. Carnes v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 420.) too large to be received through the


port-hole of the vessel, and insisted

that the port-hole should be enlarged
27. Wilson v. Turner, (7 Law Reporter, to receive them, and refused to fur-

527.) Day v. The Union India Rub. nish any more cargo till that was
ber Co.,

488 done. Thereupon, the master landed

the cargo that had been taken on
28. Wilson v. Rousseau, (4 How., 646.) board, and left for another port in

id. ballast: Held, in an action by the

owner against the charterer, to recov.
29. Wilson v. Simpson, (9 How., 109.) er compensation for the loss sustain.

id. ed by the failure to furnish the car-

go, that the undertaking of the chart-
30. Bloomer v. McQuewan, (14 Iow., erer was to furnish a cargo of such

id. timber as was suitable to the capa.

city and condition of the vessel, and
31. McClurg v. Kingsland, (1 How., that the owner did not undertake to


convey a given quantity of lumber

and timber generally, and was not
32. Walton v. Potter, (Webster's Pat. bound to alter the port-hole of the
Cas., 586.) Sickels v. Borden,


vessel. Beecher v. Bechtel, 40
33. Bovill v. Moore, (Dav. Pat. Cas., 2. Where the master of a vessel, who
361, 405.)

id. was her charterer for a specific term,

[blocks in formation]

4. Semble, that a charter-party is not a

conveyance, within the provisions of
the Act of July 29th, 1850, (9 U. S. 1. The Cireuit Courts of the United
Stat. at Large, 440), and is not requir-

States, have no jurisdiction, and, of
ed to be recorded in the Collector's

course, cannot exercise any, but such


as Congress, by legislative Acts war-

ranted by the Constitution, has con-
5. Where a vessel was chartered, by A. ferred upon them. Hubbard v. The
to B., to carry a full cargo of timber

Northern Railroad Co.,

from Apalachicola to Liverpool, at a
specified freight per load of so many 2. This Court has jurisdiction of an ori-
feet, payable at Liverpool, with a
stipulated demurrage for detention,

gial civil suit in which the plaintiâ

is a citizen, and the defendant is an
and it appeared that she took on
board, in the harbor of Apalachicola,

alien, even though the defendant is a
all she could safely take in view of

resident foreign Consul duly admitted
her draft of water, and then went out-

as such by the President. St. Luke's

side to a proper place to complete her

Hospital v. Barclay,
loading, she drawing, when fully la-
den, from two to three feet more wa-

3. The consular character of an alien
ter than the greatest depth on the

only exempts him from the jurisdic-
bar, and the charterer claimed that tion of State Courts in civil suits, and
he was not bound to put on board he may be sued in this Court as well
any cargo outside: Held, that the as in a District Court.

charterer was chargeable with know.
ledge of the tonnage and draft of wa.
ter of the vessel, and of the state of

the harbor ; that the parties must be

Costs, I to 3.
presumed to have understood that the

vessel was to go outside to finish her

Equity, 7.
loading; and that the charterer was

liable for the stipulated demurrage,

while the vessel was detained outside,

Patents, 47, 48.
waiting for cargo. Belmont v. Tyson,

Practice, 2


6. Held, also, that the charterer was li-

able to pay, at Liverpool, the stipula-
ted freight, without reference to any

custom there, as to deducting for de-
fective pieces of timber.

id. 1. Under the Act of March 3d, 1799,

$ 2, (1 U. S. Stat. at Large, 706), a
7. Held, also, that an arbitration enter- Collector has no right to charge fees

ed into, at Liverpool, between the for granting constructive permits to
consignee of the vessel and the con- land goods, but only for such permits
signee of the cargo, as to the rule of as he actually issues. Ogden v. Max.
measurement of the timber, which well,


2. Where but one permit to land the ary, 1851, and adopted his acts until

baggage of all the passengers on one that time as being official: Held, in
vessel was issued, and the Collector an action against him to recover an
exacted from the owner of the vessel alleged balance in his hands as such
fees for one permit for every five pas- Collector, that the United States were
sengers: Held, that the fees for more

estopped from claiming that he was
than the one permit were illegal, and not entitled, during the whole time
could be recovered back, in an action he so acted as such Collector, to the
by such owner against the Collector. compensation provided by said Act

id. of 1849, notwithstanding the passage

of the Act of September 28th, 1850,
3. Held, also, that no written protest (9 U. S. Stat, at Large, 508).

against the exaction of such fees was
necessary, as the Act of February 11. Held, also, that such Collector was
26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Slat. at Large, entitled, during the whole time he so
727), requires such a protest only in acted as such Collector, to a salary of
regard to duties paid.

id. $1,500 per annum, and also to the

fees and commissions prescribed by
4. No usage in regard to making such the 34th section of the Act of Febru.
charges can legalize them. id. ary 18th, 1793, (1 U. S. Stat. at Large,

316), and by the 2d section of the
õ. A Collector is personally liable for Act of March 20, 1799, (1 Id., 706),

the illegal acts of his deputy, in ex- notwithstanding the passage of the
acting fees not authorized by law. said Act of September 28th, 1850.



to ex-

6. And he is so liable, although he be- 12. Where such Collector seized, as

lieved the exaction to be legal, and forfeited to the United States, certain
although he has paid over the amount liquors, as being imported contrary
of it to the Government.

id. to law, and, without procuring any

condemnation of them by legal pro-
7. The Act of March 3d, 1849,

cess in Louisiana or Oregon, under
tend the revenue laws of the United § 5 of said Act of March 3d, 1849,
States over the territory and waters because such proceeding was imprac-
of Upper California, and to create a ticable, sold them, with the assent of
collection district therein,” (9 U. S. their owners, and received the pro-
Stat. at Large, 400), construed in ceeds, and the United States, with
reference to the compensation of the notice of such want of condemnation,
Collector of the District of Upper received, to the use of the United
California, appointed under it. The States, the one-half of the proceeds
United States v. Collier,

325 of such sales, and entered the usual

credits, in such Collector's accounts,
8. The facts and circumstances which for such amounts : Held, that such

led to and surrounded the passage of Collector was entitled, under § 91 of
the said Act of March 3d, 1849, as the Act of March 2d, 1799, (i U. S.
derived from the journals of the two Stat. at Large, 697), to retain to his
Houses of Congress, the documents own use the one moiety of such pro-
laid before Congress, and the debates ceeds.

in Congress, considered, in constru-
ing the said Act.

id. 13. Held, also, that such Collector was

entitled to such moiety, although the
9. Contemporaneous, antecedent, and Secretary of the Treasury had, on the

subsequent enactments on the same application of the owners of such
subject matter, considered, in con- liquors, made allowances to them as
struing the said Act.

id. and for the cost and value of such

liquors before their importation. id.
10. Where the United States, in adjust-

ing the accounts of a Collector ap- 14. Where such Collector took bonds
pointed under the said Act, treated to the United States, on the delivery
him as having acted as Collector un- up of seized vessels and goods, and,
der said Act until the 14th of Janu- on leaving office, returned them into

« ZurückWeiter »