Case Name: THE GENERAL G. W. GOETHALS. MERCANTILE BANK OF THE AMERICAS, Inc., v. PANAMA RAILROAD CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-04-07
Citations: 298 F. 935
Docket Number: No. 265
Parties: THE GENERAL G. W. GOETHALS. MERCANTILE BANK OF THE AMERICAS, Inc., v. PANAMA RAILROAD CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 298
Pages: 935–936

Head Matter:
THE GENERAL G. W. GOETHALS. MERCANTILE BANK OF THE AMERICAS, Inc., v. PANAMA RAILROAD CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 7, 1924.)
No. 265.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Libel filed by tbe Mercantile Bank of the Americas against the steamship General G. W. Goethals, her engines, etc.; Panama Railroad Company, claimant. Libel dismissed. 298 Fed. 933. Libelant appeals.
Affirmed.
Bigham, Englar & Jones, of New York City (D. Roger Englar, Henry B. Potter, and Ezra G. Benedict Fox, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. ”
Richard Reid Rogers, of New York City, for respondent.
Before HOUGH, MANTON and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This libel is for damages to eargo received at Colon on the steamship General G. W. Goethals in good order and condition and delivered in New York damaged by sea water. The bill of lading required that "all claims for damage to goods must be made, and the nature and extent thereof fully disclosed, in the presence of the agent of the company, having the same then in custody before they are removed from the station or wharf. Unless written demand for damage shall be made upon tbe carrier liable therefor, or upon the carrier which actually delivered the goods, within ten days after delivery, all claims for damage shall be taken to have been waived, and no suit shall thereafter be maintainable to recover the same. No agent or employee shall have authority to waive such demand."
We agree with the court below in holding that the appellant cannot recover without making proof of compliance with this clause of the bill of lading. Southern Pacific v. Stewart, 248 U. S. 446, 39 Sup. Ct. 139, 63 L. Ed. 350; Gooch v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 258 U. S. 22, 42 Sup. Ct. 192, 66 L. Ed 443; Georgia, Florida & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Blish Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. 541, 60 L. Ed. 948; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Leatherwood, 250 U. S. 478, 39 Sup. Ct. 517, 63 L. Ed. 1096; The Queen of the Pacific, 180 U. S. 49, 21 Sup. Ct. 278, 45 L. Ed. 419; The Persiana, 185 Fed. 396, 107 C. C. A. 416; The San Guglielmo, 249 Fed. 588, 161 C. C. A. 514; The Yerdi (C. C. A.) 282 Fed. 572. We find nothing in this record tantamount to a waiver of this provision of the bill of lading. For this reason, and those stated by the court below, the decree must be aflmned.
Decree affirmed.