Angel v. Cunard Steamship Co.

E.D. New York

Angel v. Cunard Steamship Co.

55 F. 1005, 1893 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedJune 2, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 55 F. 1005 (Angel v. Cunard Steamship Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angel v. Cunard Steamship Co., 55 F. 1005, 1893 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63 (E.D.N.Y. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This is an action to recover for damage to a case of feathers, which, when landed in New York, were found to he damaged by water. The case was one of a shipment of 28 cases, made in Liverpool, under a bill of lading containing many exceptions, several of which are relied on by the claimant. One only of these exceptions need he noticed on this occasion, namely, the provision as follows; “The shipowner is not liable * * * for any claim of which notice is not given before the removal of the goods.” This provision seems to be a reasonable provision in a bill of lading. The validity of such a provision has been upheld by the courts of England. Moore v. Harris, 34 Law T. (N. S.) 519. Under it the steamship is exempted from liability for the claim in question. It is proven that the case was hot on the outside when it was landed, and the libelants gave no notice of the claim of damage on that account until four or five days after the case had been removed to the warehouse,

The libel must he dismissed, and with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This is an action to recover for damage to a case of feathers, which, when landed in New York, were found to he damaged by water. The case was one of a shipment of 28 cases, made in Liverpool, under a bill of lading containing many exceptions, several of which are relied on by the claimant. One only of these exceptions need he noticed on this occasion, namely, the provision as follows; “The shipowner is not liable * * * for any claim of which notice is not given before the removal of the goods.” This provision seems to be a reasonable provision in a bill of lading. The validity of such a provision has been upheld by the courts of England. Moore v. Harris, 34 Law T. (N. S.) 519. Under it the steamship is exempted from liability for the claim in question. It is proven that the case was hot on the outside when it was landed, and the libelants gave no notice of the claim of damage on that account until four or five days after the case had been removed to the warehouse,

The libel must he dismissed, and with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F. 1005, 1893 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angel-v-cunard-steamship-co-nyed-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack