The Gazelle and Cargo
Citations
- 128 U.S. 474
- 9 S. Ct. 139
- 32 L. Ed. 496
- 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2240
Syllabus
<p>A charter-party of a vessel to a “ safe, direct, Norwegian or Danish port, as ordered on signing bills of lading, or as near thereunto as she can safely get and always lay and discharge afloat,” requires the charterer to order her to a port which she can safely enter with cargo, or which, at least, has a safe anchorage outside, where she can lie and discharge afloat.</p> <p>bindings of fact by the Circuit Court in admiralty, that a port to which charterers have ordered a vessel is one having a bar across its mouth, which it was impossible for her to pass, either in ballast or with cargo, and that the only anchorage outside is not a reasonably safe anchorage, nor a place where it is reasonably safe for a vessel to lie and discharge, are not controlled or overcome by a statement in the findings that many vessels have in fact discharged their cargoes at that anchorage.</p> <p>The omission of the Circuit Court in admiralty to make any findings upon a fact put in issue by the pleadings can only be.availed of by bill of exceptions.</p> <p>A charter-party of a vessel “to a safe, direct, Norwegian or Danish port, or as near thereunto as she can safely get and always lay and discharge afloat,” cannot be controlled by evidence of a custom to consider as safe, Within the meaning of such a charter-party,' a particular Danish port, which in fact cannot be entered by such a vessel, and has no anchorage outside where it is reasonably safe to lie and discharge.</p> <p>If a charterer prevents the performance of the voyage by refusing to order the vessel to such a port as is designated in the charter-party; and the master files successive libels for demurrage accruing under it, until the charterer files a cross libel contending that the master had committed a breach of the charter-party; and it is found, at a hearing upon ail the libels, that the time required to perform the voyage stated' in the charter-party. would have been about the same as elapsed before the vessel procured a
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the right of selection is limited by the terms of the contract
- Not, as the dissent urges, at any safe berth the vessel master so desires regardless of the charterer's contractually required selection. Post , at ----, n. 4.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ralli v. TroopSupreme Court· 1895-04-01· cited 87×
- CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co.Supreme Court· 2020-03-30· cited 54×
- The E. A. Packer, ScullySupreme Court· 1891-05-11· cited 47×
- Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.Sixth Circuit· 1904-12-17· cited 43×
- United States v. Citgo Asphalt Refining CompanyThird Circuit· 2013-05-16· cited 36×
- Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp.Second Circuit· 1948-02-27· cited 22×
- Sullivan v. Nitrate Producers' S. S. Co.Second Circuit· 1919-12-10· cited 15×
- The MedeaNinth Circuit· 1910-05-26· cited 14×
- The SaranacW.D. New York· 1904-10-12· cited 13×
- Standard Oil Co. v. Petroleum Products Storage Co.Tennessee Supreme Court· 1931-12-21· cited 12×
- Alexandre v. MacHanSupreme Court· 1893-01-03· cited 11×
- Cudahy Packing Co. v. NarzisenfeldSecond Circuit· 1924-11-10· cited 11×
- Smith, Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Colombian S. S. Co.Fifth Circuit· 1937-03-04· cited 11×
- Mencke v. Cargo of Java SugarSupreme Court· 1902-12-01· cited 9×
- Davis v. AdamsNinth Circuit· 1900-05-21· cited 8×
- Standard Oil Co. v. Wright Oil Service Co.Fourth Circuit· 1928-06-12· cited 7×
- Ainesworth Coal & Iron Co. v. Trafikaktiedolaget Grangesberg OxelosundFourth Circuit· 1923-02-06· cited 7×
- Dalbeattie Steamship Co. v. CardE.D. South Carolina· 1893-12-27· cited 7×
- Liberty Navigation & Trading Co., Inc. v. Kinoshita & Co., Ltd., TokyoSecond Circuit· 1960-12-14· cited 5×
- United States v. Atlantic Refining Co.Second Circuit· 1930-05-05· cited 5×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- EJ DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. VanceSupreme Court· 1857-01-20· cited 105×
- The\ Abbotsford\Supreme Court· 1879-04-21· cited 85×
- Kleine v. CataraU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts· 1814-05-15· cited 33×
- The\ Adriatic\Supreme Court· 1883-03-19· cited 18×
- The \Benefactor.\Supreme Court· 1880-12-18· cited 13×
- Dexter v. MunroeD. Massachusetts· 1861-11-15· cited 8×
- The CambridgeD. Massachusetts· 1871-07-15· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.