Court Opinion

ID: 9642687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:06:23.054064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:50.997054
License: Public Domain

WADDILL, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part). The crucial question to be determined in this ease in the liability of the government to Teikoku Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese corporation, for damages sustained by reason of the alleged breach of the contract to transport 500 bales of cotton from the ports of Charleston and Jacksonville, in the United States, to Kobe, Japan, mentioned in the opinion of the majority, and fully set forth in these proceedings. The government relied upon the provisions of the Harter Act (Act Deb. 13, 1893, c. 105, 27 Stat. 445 [Comp. St. §§ 8029-8035]), as entitling it to exemption from liability.
The learned judge of the District Court, after giving much consideration to this defense, reached the conclusion that the same, under the circumstances of this ease, could not be availed of by the government, because of its failure to exercise the reasonable diligence required of it to furnish a seaworthy vessel, properly' manned, equipped, and supplied, before starting on the voyage, and accordingly, after making a.certain- deduction on aeount of insurance money, decreed against it for the sum of $39¿-920.45, with interest from January 15, 1921, from which decision this appeal was taken. While I cannot well see that the government could have exercised a higher degree ■ of diligence than it did in its effort to as- ■ certain the seaworthiness of .the -vessel, still I am inclined to forego my views and accept those- of the District .Judge, who saw and -heard the witnesses, and. whose recognized *395ability and long experience entitles his judgment to great weight. I therefore concur in his conclusions and assessment of damages.
I am wholly at variance with the majority of the court in increasing the award from the sum of $39,920.45, with interest as above stated, to that of $80,553.66, with interest on $78,416.66 from January 15, 1921. I can but feel that, if the judgment of the District Court denying the exemption from liability under the Harter Act is to be accepted, by like token the damages fixed by that court should be adopted. I do not, of course, doubt the right of this court to increase damages in admiralty eases, but insist that, under the circumstances here, it should not be done. It is only where an error of law has been plainly made, or the award is clearly and manifestly inadequate, that there should he an increase in the same by the appellate court. The Sybil, 4 Wheat. 98, 4 L. Ed. 522; Hobert v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 119, 9 L. Ed. 363; The Camanche, 8 Wall. 448, 19 L. Ed. 397; The Ariadne, 13 Wall. 475, 20 L. Ed. 542; Oelwerke Teutonia v. Erlanger, 248 U. S. 251, 39 S. Ct. 180, 63 L. Ed. 399; The R. R. Rhodes, 82 F. 751, 27 C. C. A. 258; The Kia Ora, 252 F. 507, 164 C. C. A. 423; The Kanawha, 254 F. 762, 166 C. C. A. 208; United States v. Nelson et al. (C. C. A.) 276 F. 706; The Santa Barbara (C. C. A.) 299 F. 152; Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. United States of America (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 381.
This certainly cannot be said to be true in "this case, as the District Court’s award, in my view, gives the maximum allowance that should be made in any event.