FINNEY 11. GRAND
and others v. GRAND TRUNK Ry. Co.
(Di.,trict Court, N. D. 1Uinois. 1882)
SHIPPING-DISCHARGE OF CARGO-DEMURRAGE.
Where a cargo of corn was unloaded as soon as practicable at defendant's elevator, it being the only elevator at the port of arrival, defendant is not liable for demurrage, notwithstanding there was a delay in unloading the cargo arising from the fact that other vessels had arrived before the libelant's vessel, and preference was given to them in unloading.
A party making a charler of his vessel must be presumed to know the course of business at tlle port of destination, and that his vessa! must waLt until vessels which arrived before his were unloaded.
Where there was no stipulation in the charter-party that the vessel should be unloaded within any special time, nor for quick dispatch, her owner cannot recover for delay caused by awaiting her turn for unloading.
W. H. Condon, for libelant. :Jhas. E. Kremer, for respondent. BLODGETT, D. J. This is a libel for damages by the owners of the schooner George C. Finney, by reason of alleged unreasonable delay in the discharge of the cargo of the schooner at Goderich. The undisputed facts are these: That the schooner was chartered in the city of Chicago, on October 18, 1880, to carry a cargo of com to Gode. rich, Canada. She took on her cargo, and sailed the day after she was chartered, which was October 19th. Her bill of lading showed a shipment of 20,055 bushels of corn at the port of Chicago, to be transported to Goderi6h, and there delivered "for account of G. P. Comstock & Co.," "in care of the Grand Trnnk Railway Company." No promise was made for any special time in which the cargo was to be discharged; .nor was there any clause in the bill of lading requiring dispatch in discharging. . The schooner arrived at Goderich on the morning of October 23d, and her captain reported that he was ready to begin that morning; but he was told that there were five other vessels ahead of him, and he must wait his tum. The Grand Trunk Railway had only one elevator at Goderich, and it took until the afternoon of October 30th to unload the five vessels which had arrived and reported ahead of the Finney. 'On the afternoon of the 30th they began unloading the Finney, bpt owing to rough weather they were unable to fully discharge her cargo till about noon of the first of November.
I think there can be no doubt of the statement that she was un· loaded as soon as it was practicable to do so, at the Grand Trunk ele. vator, giving precedence to the vessels which had arrived ahead of her with cargoes consigned to the same elevator. The only question in the case is whether the schooner was obliged to await her turn to be unloaded, and whether, there being no stipulation that she should be unloaded within any special time, nor for quick dispatch, her owners can recover for the delay as unreasonable. The parties to the charter must be presumed to have been acquainted with the course of business at the port of destination. It must be assumed that the libelant, or those acting for him in making the charter of his vessel, knew that there was only one elevator belonging to the Grand Trunk Railway Company at Goderich, and that this cargo which he contracted to deliver to the care of that railway company must be un· loaded at this elevator. It also appears from the proof that libelant and his agent, through whom the charter was made, was aware of the fact that other vessels had beEm chartered for the same port, one of which was owned by libelant, and had sailed only a few days before the charter 'of the Finney. So he must have known that other vessels were ahead of the Finney, and that she could not be' unloaded till after they were, if she arrived after they did. In other words, he must be held to have known that his schooner must be unloaded at the Grand Trunk elevator; that she must wait until vessels which had arrived before her were unloaded; and he knew that others had been chartered and sailed in advll.nce of him, and might possibly, if not probably, have the right. to be unloaded ahead of the Finney. This view seems to be fully sustained by the supreme court of the United States in The Convoy's Wheat, 3 Wall. 225, and also in Cr08S v. Beard, 26 N. Y. 91; The Glover, 1 Brown, 167; Abb. Shipp. 311; Henley v. Brooklyn Ice Co. 8 Ben. 471; S, C. 14 Btatchf. 522. There is no proof that the schooner was not unloaded as Boon as she could be if. she was required to await her turn at the elevator. True, there was one day after the unloa,d.ing commenced in which they were unable to work on accoJ.lJilt of the weather, the wind blowing from Buch a direction as to caus@ so much sea at theelevator as to make it impossible to work This was a sufficient cause for the delay which interthe intervened between the beginning and compJetionof the T4e, further point was made by the defense that the respondent, not being the owner of the cargo of the schooner, but only a carrier
THE PETER RITTER.
who was to tl'aDSport it by rail from Goderich to its final destination, is not liable in this action for demurrage; but, with the view I take of tho law on the admitted facts, I do not deem it necessary to pass on that question. The findings of the court will be that the respondent was not in fault, and the libel is dismissed for want of eqUIty.
(DistrictOourt, E. D. NeW York.
ADMInALTY-COLLISION-8AILING VESSELS ON THE SAllIE TACK-DUTY' OB' THE OVEHTAKING VESSEL.
Where two schooners, the P. and the H.., were sailing on the saJ;lle tack in the , East river, the overtaking vessel, the R., sailing faster and a little closer to the wind than the P., and the P. could not luff, and held her course, and, on the approach of the R, those on the P. called out to the R to keep off; it was t.he duty of the leading vessel to hold her course, and it was the'duty of the overtaking vessel to keep off and pass to leeward; and, as she failed io charge this obligation, she was liable for the damages resulting.' ,
Alexa,nder If Ash, for libelant. S. B. Caldwell, for the Ritter. BENEDICT, D. J. 'l'his action is. to recover damages for a collision
between the schooner Edwin L. Pierce and the schooner Peter Ritter, that occurred in the East"'river on .the twenty-ninth day of July, 1880. Both vessels were beating up the East river, bound to the eastward, and at the time of the collision wereupdri the same tack. The Edwin L. Pierce was laden with brick; the Peter Ritter laden The wind with clay, and sailing faster than the was blowing freshly from the N. W. or N. N. W. At the Hook the Ritter hauled her sheets aft, I1ndstood along np the river close to'the wind, on a course which carrie4her to the of the buoy the foot of Tenth street about middle of the river. After the Ritter had hauled round t4eHook, the ,Pierce crossed her bow, stand. ing towards the New York shore on the starboard tack. Thistack th,ePierce held as far as Tenth street alid then she tacked and stood over to the Brooklyn shore u};lon her· long leg. Both vessels were then upon the port tack, the Ritter Gaining on the Pierce, and lyin'g closer to' the wiild than the Pietce
, oJUejJvlled by R. D. & ,WyUYltBenlld:ict.