Commodity Service Corporation v. Hamburg-American Line

Second Circuit

Commodity Service Corporation v. Hamburg-American Line

354 F.2d 234

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 1965

Docket28993_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 354 F.2d 234 (Commodity Service Corporation v. Hamburg-American Line) 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

Commodity Service Corporation v. Hamburg-American Line, 354 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant, Commodity Service Corporation, as assignee of five German importers to whom it sold perishable pork products known as “fatbaeks,” sued the appellee, Hamburg-American Line, owner of the S.S. Grünewald, for damages sustained to five lots of “fat-backs” on an ocean voyage from New York to Bremen, Germany, in June 1952.

The shipper, since it has superior access to information as to the condition of goods when delivered to the carrier, has the burden of proving good condition at the time of delivery. See Hecht, Levis & Kahn, Inc. v. The S.S. President Buchanan, 236 F.2d 627, 631 (2d Cir. 1956); The Niel Maersk, 91 F.2d 932, 934-935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 753, 58 S.Ct. 281, 82 L.Ed. 582 (1937). The district judge found that appellant failed to sustain that burden. Neither the certification of the “fat-backs” by the Department of Agriculture nor the recitation in appellee’s bill of lading establishes the good order of the cargo, since both refer only to the external condition of the cargo and do not reveal the possibility of inherent defects. See Hecht, Levis & Kahn, Inc. v. The S.S. President Buchanan, 236 F.2d 627, 631 (2d Cir. 1956).

On this record, we cannot say that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant, Commodity Service Corporation, as assignee of five German importers to whom it sold perishable pork products known as “fatbaeks,” sued the appellee, Hamburg-American Line, owner of the S.S. Grünewald, for damages sustained to five lots of “fat-backs” on an ocean voyage from New York to Bremen, Germany, in June 1952.

The shipper, since it has superior access to information as to the condition of goods when delivered to the carrier, has the burden of proving good condition at the time of delivery. See Hecht, Levis & Kahn, Inc. v. The S.S. President Buchanan, 236 F.2d 627, 631 (2d Cir. 1956); The Niel Maersk, 91 F.2d 932, 934-935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 302 U.S. 753, 58 S.Ct. 281, 82 L.Ed. 582 (1937). The district judge found that appellant failed to sustain that burden. Neither the certification of the “fat-backs” by the Department of Agriculture nor the recitation in appellee’s bill of lading establishes the good order of the cargo, since both refer only to the external condition of the cargo and do not reveal the possibility of inherent defects. See Hecht, Levis & Kahn, Inc. v. The S.S. President Buchanan, 236 F.2d 627, 631 (2d Cir. 1956).

On this record, we cannot say that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 F.2d 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commodity-service-corporation-v-hamburg-american-line-ca2-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack