Case Name: NEW YORK & CUBA MAIL S. S. CO. v. MALDONADO & CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-05-13
Citations: 225 F. 353
Docket Number: No. 235
Parties: NEW YORK & CUBA MAIL S. S. CO. v. MALDONADO & CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 225
Pages: 353–358

Head Matter:
NEW YORK & CUBA MAIL S. S. CO. v. MALDONADO & CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 13, 1915.)
No. 235.
1..Maritime Liens <§=>60—Jurisdiction—Lien foe Freight.
A through bill of lading- provided for the transportation of a shipment by rail and water from a point in Mexico to New York. Jfiie last carrier, a steamship company, paid all prior charges and delivered the goods to the consignee in New York. Held, that it had a maritime lien for rlie freight and all charges upon the goods, notwithstanding the delivery of the goods upon the consignee’s credit or his bond, and its action to recover for freight and advance charges was one on a maritime cause of action, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court.
(Ed. Noto.-—Fo-r other cases, see Maritime Liens, Cent. Dig. § 98; Dec. Dig. <2=360.]
2. Limitation of Actions <3=32—Law Governing.
Whore a bill of lading for the transportation of a shipment from a point in Mexico to New York, though signed in Blexico, was a single contract, by which, upon delivery of the shipment to the consignee in New York, he was obligated to pay the specified freight charges, the time within which a suit for such charges might be brought was to bo determined by the law of New York, and not by that of Mexico.
mi- Note.—For other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Cent. Dig. §s 4-8; Dee. Dig. <§=>2.]
Rogers, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.
Appeal_ from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree in favor of libelant. The action was brought to recover for freight and advance charges on 2,507 bags of peas from a point in Mexico to New York City.
james J. Franc and D. P. Plays, both of New York City, for appellant.
Ihirlingham, Montgomery & Beecher, of New York City (Norman B. Beecher and Rósele II. Ilupper, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before I,ACOMBE, COXE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
©=3l<'or oilier eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered. Digests & Indexes

Opinion:
FACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
A through bill of lading was signed by the first carrier, which specified carriage by water to the west coast terminal of the Tehuantepec National Railway, thence by rail (about 190 miles) to Puerto, Mexico, thence by connecting lines to New York. The last carrier, libelant, paid all prior charges and delivered the goods to defendant in New York. The contract was a single one for the entire service, for a lump sum payable in New York. Defendant contends that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the controversy, on the ground that it was not a maritime cause of action. We do not assent to the proposition. Fibelant had a maritime lien for the freight and all charges upon the goods; that it chose to let defendant take them, relying upon his credit or his bond, does not change the situation. We are satisfied that the District Court had jurisdiction of the action. Monteith v. Kirkpatrick, 3 Blatchf. 279, Fed. Cas. No. 9,721; British & F. M. Co. v. So. Pacific R. R., 72 Fed. 285, 18 C. C. A. 561.
Defendant further contends that the contract is governed by the law of Mexico, - and that certain provisions of that law as to the time within which actions to recover for freight shall be brought operate to defeat the action. A majority of the court are of the opinion that, although the bill of lading is in the Spanish language and was signed in Mexico, the contract was a single one, by which, upon delivery of the peas to defendant in New York, he was obligated there to pay a specified sum. The contract was to be completed in New York by tender of the goods and payment therefor; if payment be delayed, the time within which suit may be brought to recover it is to be determined by the law of New York.
Decree affirmed, with costs.