Seager v. New York & C. Mail Steamship Co.

Second Circuit

Seager v. New York & C. Mail Steamship Co.

55 F. 880, 5 C.C.A. 290, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2023

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 F. 880 (Seager v. New York & C. Mail Steamship Co.) 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

Seager v. New York & C. Mail Steamship Co., 55 F. 880, 5 C.C.A. 290, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2023 (2d Cir. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

1. Without expressing an opinion as to the precise meaning to he given to the clause in this charter party providing that the vessel “discharge with customary dispatch,” we concur with the district judge in his conclusions that whatever delay there was for which demurrage is claimed “arose solely from the ship’s attempt to keep separate not merely the bales belonging to the different consignees, hut the different lots of the same consignee, according to the different marks;” that no such instructions were given by the charterers, and that for delay consequent upon such attempt they are not chargeable.

2. As to the claim for expense of piling, we do not think the custom of the port, which was abundantly proved, requiring the vessel to pile the hemp on the dock for one-half its width and the length of the vessel, is inconsistent with the printed clause of the charter party providing that “cargo shall be received and delivered alongside of the vessel * * * within reach of her tackles.”

The decree of the district court is therefore affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

1. Without expressing an opinion as to the precise meaning to he given to the clause in this charter party providing that the vessel “discharge with customary dispatch,” we concur with the district judge in his conclusions that whatever delay there was for which demurrage is claimed “arose solely from the ship’s attempt to keep separate not merely the bales belonging to the different consignees, hut the different lots of the same consignee, according to the different marks;” that no such instructions were given by the charterers, and that for delay consequent upon such attempt they are not chargeable.

2. As to the claim for expense of piling, we do not think the custom of the port, which was abundantly proved, requiring the vessel to pile the hemp on the dock for one-half its width and the length of the vessel, is inconsistent with the printed clause of the charter party providing that “cargo shall be received and delivered alongside of the vessel * * * within reach of her tackles.”

The decree of the district court is therefore affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 F. 880, 5 C.C.A. 290, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seager-v-new-york-c-mail-steamship-co-ca2-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack