H.G.JOHNSON. G.JOHNSON. '
et al. ".' THE H.
"(mltr&ct OoWl"t, 8. D. New York. November 12, 1891.)
A commoJ!.(lanier vessel .uuder the 118ual bill of lading takes the dsk of damage to goods througb QOntact with otbergoods, Wh,en,. not caused by peril of the sea,' as respects a'bunajW,e purchaser, though the gOOdS are shipped by the charterer.,
' " .' . " ' ,
GOODS-VESSEL'S RISK-BoNA.FIDB ' _
On delivery of plumbago In barre1Bsblpped under the usual bill.oOading, a part weDe,found;ilamaged by cocoa-nut oilostowed above the plumbago. In other re,:spectsthe cargQ,was well stowed. There was no shift4ng, the USual, dunnage, and ·',no extraordiIiaryllerils on the vo;\Jage. 'l'lledamage arose ,either, from unfit oil casks, or improper stowage of such casks over the plumbago. HeZd, that the ship. took the risk and was liable for damage.
J.In November, 1890, Delmege, Reid & being char.. teters Jot'the .British bark' H. G., Johnson, shipped ,on 'boarq.- of her at ColombO'2,145 barrels of plumbago; which they had previously, sold to. the libelants, for :vi hich a bill of lading was signed by the master, reciting thereceipt'of the goods" in good order and well conditi()ned,l', and agreeing to deliver the same in like good order at New York, to the order of Winter & Smilie, agents, :"theaet of God, the queen's enemies, fire, and perils of the seas" excepted. Winter & Sm,iliewere the agents of the libelants, On the delivery of the plumbago at New,York, 466 of the barrelswere:folind damaged by cocoa-nut oil, apart ofwhich had been stowed abov-e the plumbago. The libel was filed to roooverthis damage. The' evidenbe leaves no doubt that the damage arose from the leakage of theoB. Aside, from fheplacing of oil casks over the plunibago, the cargo. 'was in generialwell stowed. There was no shifting of cargo on the voyage. the uslial -dunnage, aud the ship,encountered no extraordinary'perils. The claimants' witnesses ascribed/the leakage to the poor qualityof.ithe casks in which tbe cocoa-nut oil'was,shipped, tbe casks proving;w have ·been not well-seasoned, but green, and subject to. shrinkage dUring the warm weather of the passage. TheoH, as well as the phmibl1go, Was shipped by Delmege, Reid & Co., but the master snperinteildtld the stowageimd arrangement of the cargo. Tltle bills of ladingin thm c!l.Se 'import the ordinary contract and liability ofa common carrier; iTheycontain no exceptions save those above stated. In the .cnseof'Mtl8Ipool &G. :W. Steam OJ. v. Phe:ni:.t Ins: Co., 129 U. S. 397, 437, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469, Mr. Justice GRAY, in'delivering the opinion of the court. says:
"By the settled law, in the absence of some valid agreement to the contrary, the owner of a sbip carrying goods for bire, wbetber employed in ternal, in coasting,or in foreign, commerce, is a common carrier, with tbe bility of an insurer against, all losses, except only sucb two irresistible causes ,, as the act of God and public enemies."
These bills of lading are to tbe same effect. There .is nothing in them that serves to protect the ship from liability for ciamage arising from other goods. This. damage did not happen from any peril of the seas, as the master himself testifies. The datnage is directly traceable either to unfit oil casks, or to improper,stowing of such casks over the plumbago, or to the lack of suitable attention to the leakage through the deck and in the,hold during the;voyage. Upon such, bills of lading, and in the ofsUl;h absence of any other exceptions, the ship takes the as respects bona fide purchasers and consignees of the goods to whom she issues bills of lading, even though the goods were shipped by the charterers. The T. A. Goddard, 12 Fed. Rep. 174; The Antoinetta C., 5 Ben. 564. The libelants are in the situation of bona fide purchasers, paying for the goods on the faith, of the bills¢ lading issued to their agents, Winter & Smilie. Decree for the libelants, with costa.
SS:IPPINo-DAlIAGE TO OAllOO-PERILS OJ' THE· SEA.
Where a oask of oil,whioh is lashed securely as agaln,t all ordinary breaks loose during an extremely violent gale, and callBelI injury to other gpods, the damage must be attributed to a peril of the sea, especially when it that . such aooidents are notinfrequent. ; ,
'J. '1J;'Redding, for libelants.
Libel for damages to cargo.
Milton Andros, for claimants.
HOFFMAN, J. The proofs show, I think; to 8 demonstration, thafthe very great damage sustained by the hides in question in this suit could not have been caused by the negligence of the carriers. 'If ariycon6dence can be placed in human testimony, we must believe that the ship was stanch and dry, and that no water found access to the hides by the leakage of the vessel. This is shown, not only by the testimony of the master and all his principal officers, but by the evidence of the'very capable and reliable surveyors, who examined the after-hold with the speoial object of ascertaining whether any signs of leakage could be discovered. It also appears that the vessel has conveyed several shipments of hides from S)·d'ney to this port,' stowed in the same place and same mlj.nner as the hides in question, without damage. She has also made two voyages since delivering the hides, with cargo in the after-hold, which 'waade-