E. Lobe Co. v. The Guy C. Goss

D. Washington

E. Lobe Co. v. The Guy C. Goss

53 F. 839, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128

DecidedDecember 19, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 53 F. 839 (E. Lobe Co. v. The Guy C. Goss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E. Lobe Co. v. The Guy C. Goss, 53 F. 839, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128 (washd 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

HANFORD, District Judge.

The libelant sues as a corporation. Its legal existence and right to sue is pat in issue by the answer, and there is no proof of its organization. For this cause, if no other, the libel must be dismissed.

I have, however, read all the evidence, and find that to sustain the allegations in the libel of damage to libelant’s goods by the unsea,worthiness of the ship, bad stowage, want of proper dunnage, “negligence, carelessness, and improper conduct and want of attention of the master, his mariners, and servants,” there is no proof whatever, except testimony showing that certain goods, when delivered at Seattle, were in a damaged condition, the damage being by breakage, rust, chafing, sweating, and dampness. The hills of lading contain a clause exempting the ship from liability for “leakage, breakage, or [840]*840rust, except from improper stowage.” To warrant a decree awarding damages, the libelant must prove affirmatively one or more of the faults of the ship, her master or crew, which the libel charges. Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 282; McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 How. 343; Transportation Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 129. The evidence fails to do so. It does not go more than half way towards making a complete case. Therefore the court decrees that the suit be dismissed.

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

HANFORD, District Judge.

The libelant sues as a corporation. Its legal existence and right to sue is pat in issue by the answer, and there is no proof of its organization. For this cause, if no other, the libel must be dismissed.

I have, however, read all the evidence, and find that to sustain the allegations in the libel of damage to libelant’s goods by the unsea,worthiness of the ship, bad stowage, want of proper dunnage, “negligence, carelessness, and improper conduct and want of attention of the master, his mariners, and servants,” there is no proof whatever, except testimony showing that certain goods, when delivered at Seattle, were in a damaged condition, the damage being by breakage, rust, chafing, sweating, and dampness. The hills of lading contain a clause exempting the ship from liability for “leakage, breakage, or [840]*840rust, except from improper stowage.” To warrant a decree awarding damages, the libelant must prove affirmatively one or more of the faults of the ship, her master or crew, which the libel charges. Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 282; McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 How. 343; Transportation Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 129. The evidence fails to do so. It does not go more than half way towards making a complete case. Therefore the court decrees that the suit be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F. 839, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-lobe-co-v-the-guy-c-goss-washd-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack