Cokeley v. The Snap

D. New Jersey

Cokeley v. The Snap

28 F. 527, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129

DecidedAugust 6, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 28 F. 527 (Cokeley v. The Snap) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cokeley v. The Snap, 28 F. 527, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129 (D.N.J. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Wales, J.

I have considered these exceptions, and the points made by the respective proctors of the parties in support of and in opposition thereto.

The only exception that created any doubt was the one made to the item of $57.58 for general average under the insurance policy [528]*528as being too remote. The doctrine, however, is too well settled to admit of controversy, that a carrier by land or water is responsible for the safe custody and due transportation of the goods which he contracts to carry. The Commerce, 1 Black, 582. In this case the barge was liable for the damage done to the cargo by the fault of the tug. The barge, valued at $ 150, was a co-insurer with the insurance company of the cargo, and liable for its proportion of the loss, and was compelled to pay this item in consequence of the willful abandonment on the part of the tug by which the former was exposed to the running ice, and sunk, and the cargo damaged. The charge, therefore, is not remote, but almost immediate and direct.

The exceptions are therefore overruled, and a decree will be entered for the libelants for the amount found by the commissioner, with costs.'

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

Wales, J.

I have considered these exceptions, and the points made by the respective proctors of the parties in support of and in opposition thereto.

The only exception that created any doubt was the one made to the item of $57.58 for general average under the insurance policy [528]*528as being too remote. The doctrine, however, is too well settled to admit of controversy, that a carrier by land or water is responsible for the safe custody and due transportation of the goods which he contracts to carry. The Commerce, 1 Black, 582. In this case the barge was liable for the damage done to the cargo by the fault of the tug. The barge, valued at $ 150, was a co-insurer with the insurance company of the cargo, and liable for its proportion of the loss, and was compelled to pay this item in consequence of the willful abandonment on the part of the tug by which the former was exposed to the running ice, and sunk, and the cargo damaged. The charge, therefore, is not remote, but almost immediate and direct.

The exceptions are therefore overruled, and a decree will be entered for the libelants for the amount found by the commissioner, with costs.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 F. 527, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cokeley-v-the-snap-njd-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack