The Sao Paulo

Second Circuit

The Sao Paulo

207 F. 51, 124 C.C.A. 611, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1601

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided June 14, 1913·No. No. 194·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The damage was undoubtedly by “deterioration,” which is among the exceptions in the bills of lading, and concededly the burden rests on the cargo owner to show that the ship’s negligence caused or promoted such deterioration. The case is a very close one but on the whole we concur with Judge Hand’s conclusion for the reasons he has expressed that such negligence is not established by a preponderance of proof.

Decrees affirmed, with costs of this appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

The damage was undoubtedly by “deterioration,” which is among the exceptions in the bills of lading, and concededly the burden rests on the cargo owner to show that the ship’s negligence caused or promoted such deterioration. The case is a very close one but on the whole we concur with Judge Hand’s conclusion for the reasons he has expressed that such negligence is not established by a preponderance of proof.

Decrees affirmed, with costs of this appeal.

The Sao Paulo, 207 F. 51, 124 C.C.A. 611, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1601 (2d Cir. 1913).

Pincite

207 F. 51 (The Sao Paulo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related