The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-12-19
RESPONSIBILITY OF SHIP
OWNERS.
Am EmpOrtanf Decision by she United
States Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1S.-An important decision
was rendered by the United States Supreme Court
today in the case of the Providence and New York
Steamship Company plaintiff in error, againsG the
Hill Manufacturing Company in error to the Su-
preme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Mas
sachusetts. The principal question raised by this
litigation relates to the effect to be given to act
of Congress approved March 3, 1851, entitled can
act to limit the responsibility Of shipowners and
for other purposes" In May, 1868, the Hill Man.
ufacturing Company of Boston delivered to the
Providence and New York Steamship Company a
quantity of goods to be transported by steamer to
New York city. The goods were carried safely to
New York, but before they had been unloaded the
steamer containing them was burned atthe dock by
fire which originated in building shore. Suics
for damages were thereupon instituted in New
York and Boston by the owners of the goods
against the owners of the burned steamship. The
latter responded by in the
United States District Court for the Southern Dis
trct of New York to limit their liability under the
act of 1851 above referred to, which provides In
Its first section that shipowners shall be exempt
from liability for losses board their ship by fire
"uness such fire is caused by the design or neglect
ct such owners" and in its third section that the
liability OF ehipowners for embeZZlement, loss or
destruction of goods board of their ships, incur
red without the privity or knowledge Of such own
ers shall In no case exceed the amount or value of
and her freight,
In the course of these proceedings the Steamship
Company entered into stipulation 10 pay into the
court the whole amount of its interest ID the burn
ed steamship to be divided equally among the own
ers OF the destroyed goods and asked to he scharg
ed from further liability. The stipulation was ac
cepted by the court, and q decree was entered for
pllddmg the owners OF the burned goods Qncluding
cute any claims for damages account of their de-
struction.
The Hill Manufacturing Company, notwithstand
A..
Massachusetts and finally obtained from the Su-
preme Judicial Court of that State a Judgment in
It's favor. The steamship company sued out a writ
OF error and brought the case here for final deter
mination of the question whether the Institution OF
proceedings by it in the United States District
Court 70 limit ito liability under the act of 1851
should be suspended and barred the prosecution of
claims for the same losses aud injuries in other
courts This court, in a long and elaborate opinion
by Justice Bradley, holds first that proceedings in
the District Court of the United States under the
act of 1851 to limit the liability of shpowners sup
ersede all other actions and suits for the loss
or damages in the State or Federal Courts. Other
actions and suits ought to after proceedings
for limited liability have been instituted, aud the
value of the ship aud proceeds have been secured
paid into court whether the Court issues injunc
tion or not.
Second, that loss and damage by fire on board of
a ship within the relief of the third as well as
the first section of the act
Third, that the Massachusetts State Court ei red
In 60 ng on with this case after proceedings had be-
under the act of 1851, had full jurisdiction and
plenary powers.
The value and Importance of this law, the court
says to our maritime commerce can hardly be esti-
mated but the prac ical value of it largely depends
on the manner in which it is administered. If the
courts having the execution of it administer 1t in
spri. OF fairness with the view of giving shipown-
ers the full benefit of the immunites intended TO be
secured by it, the encouragement it will afford to com
lnercia operation will be of the greatest Importance
but II it is administered with tight and grudging
hand, constructing every clause most unfayorably
against the shipowners and allowing little pos
sbe to operate in his favor the law will hardly be
worth the trouble of its enactment. Its value and
efficiency would also be greatly diminished if not
entil ely destroyed, by allowing its administration to
be hampered and interfered with by various and
conflicting jurisdictions.
The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts is reversed and the cause remanded
with directions to take such further proceedings as
may be in accordance with this opinion.