Commodity Service Corporation v. Hamburg-American Line

Second Circuit

Commodity Service Corporation v. Hamburg-American Line

354 F.2d 234

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided December 29, 1965·No. 28993_1·Published·Cited by 11 cases

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.

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

Pincite

354 F.2d 234 (Commodity Service Corporation v. Hamburg-American Line) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related