Court Opinion

ID: 8631776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:38:50.894994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:47.546469
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Circuit Justice.
This case involves two questions of fact: First, wheth*907er the consignees oí the ship agreed with the respondents to suspend any further discharge of hemp from.the ship beyond the amount which had been discharged before noon. On the part of the libellants it is insisted, that the proofs establish the agreement, and on the part of the claimant that the proofs fall short of this. Most of the damage was done to the hemp which was discharged after one o’clock, it having been drenched by a shower between three and four o’clock p. m. The second question relates to the quantity of hemp discharged after the time when, as is alleged, the further discharge was, by the agreement, to cease. Both questions strike me as being exceedingly close upon the evidence, and are so nearly balanced that it would be wrong for an appellate court to interfere. According to the impression which the examination of the proofs has left upon my mind, I should not feel justified in disturbing the conclusions of the count below, whether for or against the appellant, in respect to either question, as I think different minds might very well arrive at different conclusions. To warrant a reversal upon a mere question of fact, the preponderance of the evidence should be of a somewhat decided character; such as would justify the granting of a new trial in a court of common law, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. It seems to me that this principle should govern this court in reviewing a question of fact determined by the district court
I cannot doubt that the consignees of the ship had authority to arrange with the owner or consignees of the cargo in respect to the time and manner of its delivery, and that the arrangement thus entered into for general convenience and the better security of the cargo, was not a personal matter between the parties to the agreement. The consignees of the ship had the control of her for the purpose of delivering the cargo, and could modify and regulate such delivery in any way consistent with the rights of those interested in the cargo. The case does not stand upon an independent agreement, speaking in a technical sense, but upon an understanding between the parties in respect to the delivery, on which the respondents had a right to rely, and the breach of which occasioned the damage. The decree must be affirmed, with costs.