Hibernia Ins. v. St. Louis & New Orleans Transportation Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Hibernia Ins. v. St. Louis & New Orleans Transportation Co.

17 F. 478, 5 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 397, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2278

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedJuly 3, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 F. 478 (Hibernia Ins. v. St. Louis & New Orleans Transportation Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hibernia Ins. v. St. Louis & New Orleans Transportation Co., 17 F. 478, 5 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 397, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2278 (circtedmo 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, J.

As to the structure of the bill and the principles involved, the views of this court were heretofore expressed;¹ following Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, and S. C. 101 U. S. 688. As to the shipment on the Sallie Pearce, the contract was that of a common carrier. As. to the Colossal there has been some testimony-offered in order to determine whether the contract was simply that of towage or that of a common carrier. The court holds that it was simply a towage contract, which is apparent, not only from the face of the written contracts themselves, but also from the facts as developed that said barge and cargo belonged to the shipper. Whether this be so or not is of no moment, in the view the court takes of the case. There were two accidents; one as to the Sallie Pearce, and the other as to the Colossal. As usual in such cases there is a great conflict of testimony. Hence, the court has sought to reach a correct conclusion by examining the physical facts and circumstances connected with each disaster. The conclusion reached is that each disaster was caused by an inevitable accident, falling within the excepted perils of the river.

The bill will be dismissed, with costs.

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

Treat, J.

As to the structure of the bill and the principles involved, the views of this court were heretofore expressed;¹ following Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, and S. C. 101 U. S. 688. As to the shipment on the Sallie Pearce, the contract was that of a common carrier. As. to the Colossal there has been some testimony-offered in order to determine whether the contract was simply that of towage or that of a common carrier. The court holds that it was simply a towage contract, which is apparent, not only from the face of the written contracts themselves, but also from the facts as developed that said barge and cargo belonged to the shipper. Whether this be so or not is of no moment, in the view the court takes of the case. There were two accidents; one as to the Sallie Pearce, and the other as to the Colossal. As usual in such cases there is a great conflict of testimony. Hence, the court has sought to reach a correct conclusion by examining the physical facts and circumstances connected with each disaster. The conclusion reached is that each disaster was caused by an inevitable accident, falling within the excepted perils of the river.

The bill will be dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. 478, 5 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 397, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hibernia-ins-v-st-louis-new-orleans-transportation-co-circtedmo-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack