Botany Worsted Mills v. Knott

Second Circuit

Botany Worsted Mills v. Knott

82 F. 471, 27 C.C.A. 326, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1984

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 82 F. 471 (Botany Worsted Mills v. Knott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Botany Worsted Mills v. Knott, 82 F. 471, 27 C.C.A. 326, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1984 (2d Cir. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree in this case with the court below that the damage to the wool of the libelant was due, not to “fault or error in the management or navigation of the vessel,” but to negligence in the loading or stowage of the cargo; and deem it unnecessary to add anything to the observations of Judge Brown upon the point. A majority of the court also concur in the conclusions of the court below that the exception in the bill of lading for liability for “damage by stowage, * * though caused by the negligence of the master,” notwithstanding the provision that the contract should be governed by the law of the flag (English), did not relieve the owner of the steamship, such a stipulation being against the public policy of this country, and therefore not enforceable by its courts; and approve the decisions in The Trinacria, 42 Fed. 863; The Glenmavis, 69 Fed. 472; The Iowa, 50 Fed. 561. In this view of the case it is unnecessary to decide whether the prohibitions of the Harter act apply to a bill of lading issued at a foreign port. The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

LAOOMBE, Circuit Judge, concurs in result.

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

PER CURIAM.

We agree in this case with the court below that the damage to the wool of the libelant was due, not to “fault or error in the management or navigation of the vessel,” but to negligence in the loading or stowage of the cargo; and deem it unnecessary to add anything to the observations of Judge Brown upon the point. A majority of the court also concur in the conclusions of the court below that the exception in the bill of lading for liability for “damage by stowage, * * though caused by the negligence of the master,” notwithstanding the provision that the contract should be governed by the law of the flag (English), did not relieve the owner of the steamship, such a stipulation being against the public policy of this country, and therefore not enforceable by its courts; and approve the decisions in The Trinacria, 42 Fed. 863; The Glenmavis, 69 Fed. 472; The Iowa, 50 Fed. 561. In this view of the case it is unnecessary to decide whether the prohibitions of the Harter act apply to a bill of lading issued at a foreign port. The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

LAOOMBE, Circuit Judge, concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. 471, 27 C.C.A. 326, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 1984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/botany-worsted-mills-v-knott-ca2-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack