Court Opinion

ID: 8637874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:48:16.267568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.481350
License: Public Domain

BLATCHFORD, Circuit Judge.
The decision of this case in the district court' was placed upon the ground, that the New Haven and Northampton Company, as a common *1167•carrier, had no right to impose on the canal-boat the requirement that it should, as a condition of the right to place the coal in the tubs of the company, attached to the company’s derrick, employ, to place it there, shov-ellers designated by the company, and pay such shovellers the rate of compensation fixed by the company for such service. It is contended, in this court, by the claimants, that the district court ignored +he status of the company as a wharf-owner; that the company, as the owner of the wharf, had the right to make reasonable rules in regard to the use of the wharf; that the company had a right, by statute, to exact seven cents per ton for coal discharged at its wharf, as wharf-age; that the libellants’ boat was not charged any such wharfage; that the use by the boat of the facilities provided by the company, in the way of derricks, hoisting engines, &a, is the use of the wharf; that all which the company did, was to refuse to allow the boat to use those facilities, and thus use the wharf, unless it would permit the coal to be shovelled into the tubs by men designated by the company; and that this was only a reasonable regulation made by the company, as a wharf owner. The difficulty with this view of the case is, that the regulation was not sought to be enforced, in fact, as a regulation of wharfage, or of the use of the wharf by the boat. There was no charge made against the boat for the privilege of making fast to the wharf; and, if any payment was to be made for the use of the wharf, by depositing the coal on the wharf, it was to be made by the claimants, who were the owners of the coal and the employers of the company. According to the well understood acceptation of a bill of lading such as the one in question here, where the coal was deliverable “to Glasgow Co., canal dock, New Haven” — the Glasgow Company being a mill owner at a place on the line of the railroad company, and the latter company being the owner of the canal dock at New Haven, with its tracks running to and on the dock, and having derricks and engines for hoisting the coal in tubs from the deck of the boat to the cars on the tracks— the coal was delivered by the boat into the tubs, and the boat paid the company so much per ton for hoisting the coal and dumping it into the cars. The boat had nothing to do with paying anything for the use or occupation of the wharf by the coal, and it paid separately for the hoisting. If the company had a right to charge the boat for tying up to, and using the spiles on, the wharf, no such charge was made. There was, therefore, no foundation for the requirement as to the shov-ellers, in any relation between the company as a Wharf-owner and the boat.
The imposition of the requirement by the claimants’ agent, as a common carrier, was not a reasonable one. In regard to this I concur entirely with the views of the district judge, in his decision in the court below. He found that the regulation was not a necessary one. If it' had been necessary and indispensable, it would have been reasonable. It might, indeed, have been reasonable without being necessary. But, to be reasonable, it must be reasonable as respects both parties. In the present case, the effect of the requirement was to impose on the boat an unnecessary expense of two cents per ton of coal, for shovelling into the tubs.
There must be a decree for the libellants, in affirmance of the decree below, with costs.