Sonia Cotton Oil Co. v. Steamer Red River

Citations

• 106 La. 42

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. The consignee is the owner of the goods until the contrary is shown, and he can sustain an action and sequestration against the'master of the carrier for the recovery of the goods.</p> <p>2. After the arrival of the steamboat at the landing at which the delivery was to be made, the goods not having been unloaded and the boat having left the landing, and the appearance being that it was on its way to another market with the goods, there was ground for a sequestration.</p> <p>3. The captain’s unwillingness to carry the goods to the place designated by the consignee at the landing, even if sustained by the contract between him and the consignee, did not afford good ground for not landing the goods and tendering them to the consignee to be delivered on payment of the freight.</p> <p>4. On refusal of the consignee to accept goods, it devolves on the master of the • carrier to have them placed, at the expense of the consignee, in a place where they will not be exposed to loss.</p> <p>5. The terms of a bill of lading as written, to the extent that it is a contract and not a mere receipt for goods, are not to be changed by verbal testimony except in case of error or fraud.</p> <p>6. If there was error in the clause by which the master bound himself to place the goods on the levee, the master, none the less had no right to retain the goods on board and leave the place of the goods’ destination.</p> <p>7. The tender made by the consignee to the master of the freight charges on the goods was sufficient, in view of the fact that the master’s conduct and utterances'plainly showed that he was unwilling to accept the charges, even if tendered in a strictly formal manner and though the tender included all . that was due.</p>