Case Name: Julius Robertson, Appellant, v. The National Steamship Company (Limited) Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896
Citations: 1 A.D. 61
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julius Robertson, Appellant, v. The National Steamship Company (Limited) Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 61–63

Head Matter:
Julius Robertson, Appellant, v. The National Steamship Company (Limited) Respondent.
Carrier—liability of, under a bill of lading, for damage to goods by moisture — foreign bill of lading which is valid where made and in New York, and invalid in an intermediate State.
In an action brought to recover damages for injuries to a quantity of goat skins shipped from Havre, France, and consigned to the plaintiff in New York, it appeared that shipment was made under a bill of lading, executed in France, bearing the heading, “Through from Havre to New York;” that, under the terms of the bill of lading, the skins were to be forwarded by the steamer Wolf to London and were to be there transshipped upon the steamer Canada for New York; that the defendant was not to be liable for damages from sweating, rain, spray or inherent deterioration, nor under the bill of lading, where the damage was done while the skins were not actually in the possession of the defendant or shipped on board its steamer. It appeared that the skins wrere transported by the steamer Wolf from Havre to Southampton, thence by railroad to London and thence by the steamer Canada to New York; that neither the steamer Wolf nor the railroad between Southampton and London were owned or operated by the defendant; that, when the skins reached the plaintiff in New York, they had been damaged by moisture.
There was evidence tending to show that the skins were injured upon their passage from Havre to London.
Held, that, under the terms of the bill of lading, such injuries were suffered while the skins were not actually in the possession of the defendant nor shipped upon its steamer, and that, therefore, the defendant was not liable;
That, as the contract was made in France, was to be performed mainly outside of England, and was valid in the State of New York, the plaintiff could not be heard to say that certain provisions of the bill of lading were illegal under the statutes of England, and that, consequently, the contract ought not to be upheld.
Appeal by the jhaintiff, Julius Robertson, from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 23d day of April, 1895, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at a Special Term of the court dismissing the complaint upon the merits.
The action was brought to recover damages for injuries to a quantity of goat skins which were shipped from Havre, France, consigned to the plaintiff in New York. The shipment was made under a through bill of lading executed in France, bearing the heading “ through from Havre to New York,” wherein among other things the defendant acknowledged the recept of the skins in good order at Havre, to be forwarded by the steamer Wolf to London, and to be there transshipped upon the steamer Cemada for New York, subject to certain exceptions and conditions therein contained. Among these were the following: That defendant should not be liable for loss or damage resulting from sweating, rain, spray or inherent deterioration, nor (under the through bill of lading) where the damage was done while the skins were not actually in the possession of defendant or shipped on board its steamer.
The skins were transported by the steamer Wolf from Havre to Southhampton, thence by railroad to London, and thence by defendant’s steamer Canada to New York. Neither the steamer Wolf nor the railroad were owned or operated by the defendant, but by outside parties. When the skins reached the plaintiff in New York, it was claimed they had been considerably injured by having been wet.
The trial court decided that the injury to the skins was not caused by any negligence or breach of duty on the part of the defendant, and that whatever injury there was resulted from causes for which the defendant was not responsible; that its liability was only for such injuries as resulted while the skins were actually in its custody in London or New York, or while being transported on its steamer from London to New York.
Everett P. Wheeler, for the appellant.
John Chetwood, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Williams, J.:
There was a conflict of evidence as to where the skins were injured and as to the cause of such injury. We are of opinion' the decision of the trial court should be sustained and the judgment affirmed. The finding that the cause of the injiu-y was within the exceptions, sweating, rain, spray or inherent deterioration, is supported by the evidence. The trial judge heard the evidence and saw and heard the witnesses produced before him, and his conclusion as to the facts should not be disturbed. More than this, there was evidence tending to show that the injuries to the skins were received while they were being transported from Havre to London. For such injuries the defendant is not liable undér the bill of lading. It was a through bill from Havre to New York, and the skins were not actually in the possession of the defendant or shipped upon its steamer until their arrival and delivery in London, within the meaning of the contract.
The contention that the provisions of the bill of lading were illegal under the statutes and laws of England should not be upheld. Even if such statutes were applicable to such a contract when made in England, and the laws of England were as claimed, they arc not applicable to this contract, because it was made in France and was to be performed mainly outside of England. It was a good contract under the laws of New York. (Reed v. Express Co., 48 N. Y. 466; Ricketts v. Railroad Co., 59 id. 637.)
We think the contract was one the parties might legally make, and that it was binding upon them.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Patterson and O'Brien, JJ., concurred.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.