Mitchell Transp. Co. v. Patterson

U.S. Circuit Court

Mitchell Transp. Co. v. Patterson

22 F. 49, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485

DecidedJanuary 17, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 22 F. 49 (Mitchell Transp. Co. v. Patterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell Transp. Co. v. Patterson, 22 F. 49, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485 (uscirct 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

(orally.) The captain of the Mitchell did not, evidently, intend to separate the cotton of the defendants from the rest of the cargo, nor to deliver it to them at their own risk after the disaster. Not only did he ship it to his own account, and direct that it should not be delivered to the original consignees without an average [52]*52bond, but, on bis coming to Memphis, he did not notify the consignors, nor rely on them to save their shipments. The case is one for general average; and the fact that the Mitchell did not complete her trip, but returned, when raised, to the nearest port of safety for repairs, should not defeat the contribution under the facts of this case. The custom,to include pertain, expenses in the general average is, perhaps, not admissible as evidence; but in this case there was, in effect, one continuous effort to save the sunken vessel and her cargo, and the average should include all the expenses from the sinking of the vessel, not excluding those incurred for a reshipment of a part of the damaged cargo from Memphis to New Orleans on the Cherokee. Decree accordingly.

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

By the Court,

(orally.) The captain of the Mitchell did not, evidently, intend to separate the cotton of the defendants from the rest of the cargo, nor to deliver it to them at their own risk after the disaster. Not only did he ship it to his own account, and direct that it should not be delivered to the original consignees without an average [52]*52bond, but, on bis coming to Memphis, he did not notify the consignors, nor rely on them to save their shipments. The case is one for general average; and the fact that the Mitchell did not complete her trip, but returned, when raised, to the nearest port of safety for repairs, should not defeat the contribution under the facts of this case. The custom,to include pertain, expenses in the general average is, perhaps, not admissible as evidence; but in this case there was, in effect, one continuous effort to save the sunken vessel and her cargo, and the average should include all the expenses from the sinking of the vessel, not excluding those incurred for a reshipment of a part of the damaged cargo from Memphis to New Orleans on the Cherokee. Decree accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. 49, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-transp-co-v-patterson-uscirct-1884.