New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-03-06
DECISIONS or THE SUPREME COURT.
saAs1rrrrEs or STEAMSHIP cosPANY-THl

y
OHIO GREENBAcK Casa
washington March SIN the Supreme Court Of
he United States to-day in the case Of Peter L.
SimbeRy appellant AGAINST Charles D. Arms, Hannah
n. ARES and the Grand Central Mining Company, com
az upon appeal from the Circuit Court Of the United
latss for Tho Northern District Of Ohio. Eastern
oivision, the decision Of the lower court was re
ersed
decision was rendered IN the important steam.
hip Insurance liability case Of the Liverpool and
.reat Western Steam Company Omitted, appellant,
ssanst tho FhoeDx Insurance. Company, on appeal
nom the Circuit Court Of the UEited States for the
EASTERN District Of Nev-Yerk THIS was q case
rought by an insurance company claiming to be
ubrogatcd 10 the rights Of tho owners Of goods
Tipped on beard the Montana, one OF the appellants
,ean1ships and lost or damaged by the STANDING Of
be vessel In Holyhead Bay, on The coast Of Wa'es,
ecaase OF tho negligence of tho master and officers
~ the ship. The. points considered by this court
gere the contention Of the steamship company that
I was not common carrier, that 1t was exempt from
liability BY tho terms of the bill OF lading and that
Tho insurance company had not been snbrogated to
The rights Of The owners Of tho goods. The court
says that q steamship IS common
sarr.er and so dsposes of the FIRST point
rhe court concludes that no public carrier Is per
stted by law 10 stipulate for exemption from the
consequences Of negligence. Nor can the duties Of
care and diligence be waived In respect Of the servants
contract was to be performed chiefly upon the high
seast should b governed by the general maritime law
ana that By that law such stpuiations are VALID the
court ssys Is answered nsE by the fact that there IS
NOS shown to be any such general maritime law, and
that the Of te United states have adopted
any rule concerning the validity Of such stipulation.
An cpinioa was rendered Affirming the Judgment Of
tie supreme Court OF the District Of Columbia In the
Lsyey, plaintiff r error, agt s0ther NJ stockslager,
General Land Commissioner.
In an opinion In he case q TIE Oregon RaiEay and
goasa Hallway toDpany Qinltsd the court holds that
&c ossgon.sn compsay had ~ power e hsss rs
1ss supse1as Court also ordered decision today
p a IN error ss samuel Moore Is sssuss
u HARRISON County, Ohio In error % the supreme
ssSesss ssss 90 he ground Sst as y
s sS0s into T Tss doas ws sox
ssss s 20 ls /, norton p ' IN, +
Eset q shs CIV q Brcwgsyills a error e the Scal.
81 rsa 10 IL "a s1ns Rs1S q ss
yns District e sssvnsylilo plaintiff il srre as
reasons assigned forsihs aairnaace Of Judgment ia
~ No 4 15s-Tas sehradst Mining ana Msnafseturins
Company, pistntiI N sfror ast. Esisha A Packer.
~ ss ss western e bos Sas ssss.
40 Ioo--rIersp n. Chapman, pisIn,sS IN srror
sut .AshbeI y. Barney, president &c. N error "a
TIC rcrit Court of tho United states for The Northern
D1etfiet 81 IliIn6is. Judgment reversed.
No fo7.s-sohn Bena and Others appellants, sgt
tss s ssss 10 soasSs District q Sss 2 4
"a La -sThe InsaSszoe company q North America
alat1f6 IA e14oz, aat jamie & HuaFdiaa and Others
Is error y the q she United STATES FOL
Nd. III, The ArNen6as Valley Land and Cattle
conpany dsmtri,, plsintlis 10 error, sgt Jeremiah
81 Xanp. IN error TO the Great Court of the United
States 5o< The pistsiet d Colorado. judgment
"a i,4iss-chas chs0 psns, appellant agt tss
rY<s{fsd 8fa<ea. On BloSpn Ok Asfo1sgT General Gar
IA. rcsssis1,e1 for Wgume1f on Match 25 Ihis i
i csse q aal tae cpmstx1tsonaitT cf The Boot
Ne sss sastd Asr.ss z 7, gla,ass r. ssssr
"a tfe f6realt Court OF tie United States for ID.
&o>tbEra D,str1ct al S8esYcrks Dspisscd.
= TS & Terry kpa wifcs appellkptz, aFt
n III: 2baxshs sxcostsrs Mesion % aismiss sub
ss assf1s sss Sl i. s'y 3 J. s sss
1s II. sss vansu islaad, il. sgssiiaoi. eat y.