U'PIlAtL '7. WILLIAMS.
. MCPHAIL't'. WILLIAMS
(DI.8tr£ct Court, D., Massachlt8etts.
January 7, 1890.)
SmpPING-LuBILITY Ol'OWNER-LIMITED LIABILITY AOT.
In a libel in personam by a material-man for repairs on a vessel, it appeared the repairs were made and the supplies furnished on the authority of both respondents, each being a half owner in the vessel, and that they were furnished on the order of one of them, with the previous knowledge and consent of the other. Held that, under Act Congo June 26, 1884, providing that the liability of a ship-owner shall be limited to the proportion of any and all liabilities that his share of the vessel bears l<O the whole, but that this provision shall not apply to wages due to persous employed by such ship'Clwner, both the respondents were liable for the whole amount due for such repairs, they being made on the personal oontract of each of them.· ,
Libel for labor and materials.
NELSON, J'. This case waS a libel in per80nam by a material-manto recover a balance of $322.56 for repairs and supplies furnished to the bark Carib, of which the respondents, Williams & Luiz, were owners. I find, upon the proofs, that the repairs and supplies were furnished at Boston, the home port of the vessel, upon the authority of both respondents, each being a half owner; that they were furnished upon the order of Luiz, with the previous knowledge and consent of Williams; and that the balance claimed has not been paid, and is a proper charge for the work and materials furnished. Upon these facts,the respondent Williams contends that the decree should be so framed as to limit his liability toone-.half of the debt, relying on the eighteenth section of the act of June 26, 1884, (23 St. 57 ,)which "that the individual liability shall be limited to the proportion of any or all debts and liabilities that his individual share of the vessel bears to the and the aggregate liabilities of all the owners ofa vessel on account of the same shall not exceed the value of such vessels and freight pending: provided, that thi§! provision shall not affect the liability of any owner incurred previous to the passage of this act, nor prevent any claimant from joining all the owners in one action, nor shall the same to wages duato persons employed by said ship-owners." It was decided by Judge BROWN in The Amo8 D. Carver, 35 Fed. Rep. 665, that this statute has no application to the personal contracts of ship-owners. In his opinion the learned judge says: act of 1884. limiting the liability of. the owners of a vessel on acc()l1nt of the saIne, does not. I think. restrict the liability of owners upon their 0\Vn personal contracts, but only their liability' on account of the vessel;' that is. the liability that is imposed on them by law, in consequence of their OWnership of the'vessel, viz., for the contracts or acts of the ship, or her master' without the owner's express intervention."
III .tIidgeBRowN'S conclusion, that the act does not extend to cOIl: tracts entered into personally by the owner, I fully concur. In Butlerv.
Steam-Ship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 554, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612, Mr. Justice
in deliverlng, the'judgmetrt ,of, ithe: 'eourt, referring to section
"The language IS v'aglle,ltlsfrue; but it is pos!ffble that it was . intended to remove all doubts of the application of the limited liability law to and the privity or knowledge oithe
. ;:.''',,,,j was to.debts and liabilities arising in contra<,lt'at all, about which'some dQubtmay be inferred from this reQ,tMr. Justice' it 'D:1het· those for W hir;hunder ,the law, before the act, ,theahip-ownerwas bQund,although contracted withtfut' his privity or knowledge. .Cel'tainly thetewl:ts'tlb occasion for congress to legislate to limit the liability of ship-owners on contracts which. they enter into or,e;pr43ss1y ' The is entitled to a decree against both respondents for the whole amount of hisclajrp, '\Vitli froJ,ll ,the filing Qf "Or4erflclaccoIdingly. ' ',.,'" " ' . ' ' ..' .... ..
oWller", , ' ,
.I .,o , .'
(Dlstrict Court, S. D. Aktbama.
U. godds ship.ped on. a' vesllelare lost before deliver.y at destInation, the presum.po tlciti is that the loss ooourred by default of the carrier, and the burden is on him to sbow i.t due W a pel'U of the sea, fr(lplllability for whiell.h,e Is exempted by the bUl of lading. '." ." I " '. ' . . . · . . · · '. .'
OF GOODs-Loss-BURDBN OF PROOF.
Mopile... · .....
of goods on a voyage from Liverpool to
W:S.Anderson, for libelant. Pil.lana; ''1!O'l''reiJ& Hanaw, for claimant.
.. Tot1L1lIN; J,"'i!f goodsiarelost their reception, and before their by t1l8 is .that loss was occasioned b.'Y.'. d.. . !j09(We. c.a.rria.r:; Where no ·.accoun.t, of .ho.w the goo.d.s were lost . '. . is The carrier being prima!aci6 liable, the burden is on him to show: tht the 108s was occasidl!lEldby a it by
!lReporl.eaby Peter I. Hamilton, Esq.;'of the Mobile bar.