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.
CIANCIMINOS 'Jl()W &TRANSPORTATrON co. ". THE RIPPLE.
peril.ofthe sea, from 'Which he is exempt in the bill of biding. Desty, Shipp. & Adm. §§ 224, 231; 255,258,260. The defense set up in this case is that the losscaJlle under the exceptions in the bill of lading, "perils of tqe sea." The clilim.ant proved the encountering by the ship during the voyage of weather sufficiently heavy to warrant, in my opinion, the conclusion thatJheiJIlmediate cause of the destruction and loss of the goods in question wa:s the motion of the ship in the heavy weather. This proof from the shifted the burden to the libelant to show that this result would ,have been prevented by the exercise'of due care in the stowage of the cargo. Olark v. BarnweU, 12 How. 272. "Mo--, ofthe ship sufficient to account for the damage1;>eing proved to have ocqurred during thevQyage, the presumption, in absence of other tha,t such ,and, when the motion of tPP.ship is shown to have been caused by the sea, the exception of the of lading exemph! the ship,unless bad stowage be proved.» The 30 Fed. Rep. 210. ,The testimony in this case as to the sea to warrant the inference that it was-the sea that caused and there is no evidenee to satisfy the court that there WitS 1)8,4 stqwage, or any other default on the part of the officers or crew of the shipjj; There are some other points raised by the pleadings which it ,is unne<leSS1Ul to notiQe. For the reasons stated the libel must be dis-
(Dl8trlct Oowrt, S. D. New York. January 18, 18110.)
The tug R., having the libelant's scow in tow on a hawser, shaped her coul'l5eto go between the anchored tug Y. and the wreck of the A., between which a hawser 175 yards long was stretched, off Barclay street, North river. The R. had no lookout, save the pilot in the wheel.house, and the hawser WllS not observed until near the Y. The tug then sheared to the westward, and cleared the M., but the scow collided with her and WllS damaged. Held, that the R. WllS in fault, both for not haVing a separate lookont, who might have seen the hawser in time, and also for improperly shaping her course between the M. and A.. instead of going to the westward. .
In Admiralty. Libel for damages by collision. Carpenter & Mosher, for libelant. R. N. Waite, for respondent.
BROWN, J. On the 18th of July, 1889, the wrecking boat Merritt was anchored off Barclay-Street pier, from 175 to 200 yards west of the Bunken wreck Atlas, with which she was connected by a cable from her stem. The Ripple having the libelant's scow in tow on a hawser, not observing the Merritt's hawser until within a couple of hundred yards