Stockton Milling Co. v. California Navigation & Improvement Co.

Citations

• 165 F. 356
• 1908 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165

Syllabus

<p>1. Shipping (§ 124*) — Injury to Cargo — Liability op Vessel.</p> <p>Respondent contracted to transport a barge load of flour for libelants, and to load the same, but at libelants’ request employed a certain company to do tbe loading. Wbon partly loaded, and while lying unattended at night, the barge grounded at one end at low tide, by reason of which her seams opened and she sank, injuring a part of the cargo. Held, that the loss was through the negligence of respondent or of its agent, the loading company, for which it was responsible.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipping, Cent. Dig. § 408; Dec. Dig. § 124.*]</p> <p>2. Shipping (§ 141*) — Contract op Affreightment — Limitation of Liability.</p> <p>A provision of a contract for the carriage of a cargo of flour on a barge by which the shipper assumed the risks of carriage did not relieve the barge owner from liability for a loss of flour by reason of its negligence or that of its agent in failing to properly care for the barge while being loaded.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipping, Cent. Dig. §§ 493, 497; Dec. Dig. § 141.*] ■</p> <p>3. Shipping (§ 132*) — Action for Injury to Cargo — Defenses.</p> <p>It is not a defense to an action by a shipper against a vessel owner to recover the value of goods lost through the latter’s negligence that the goods were fully insured and the insurance has been paid to libelant, although it does not appear from the pleadings or evidence that the suit is Drought by the direction or for the benefit of tbe insurer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Shipping. Dec. Dig. § 132.*]</p>