Court Opinion

ID: 8123399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 15:02:52.90686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:06.764425
License: Public Domain

Butler, J.
The defense is not sustained. Upon arrival of the cargo at Philadelphia, where the charter required it brought, the respondent ordered it back to Chester, several miles below, claiming a right to do so under the contract. Conceding Chester to be without the limits of Philadelphia, the respondent sets up a custom, which he says requires it to be treated as withiu, where the particular commerce to which this contract relates is involved. Without entering upon a discussion of the subject it is sufficient to say that no such custom existed at the date of this contract,—whether one exists now need not be considered. What is necessary to the establishment of such a custom is well understood; the burden of proof is on the party setting it up. In the case under consideration the proof is insufficient. That many outward-bound vessels, under contract to carry oil from Philadelphia, had, within two or three months preceding the date of this charter, loaded at Chester, and inward-bound vessels loaded with oil, or oil casks, had unloaded there, is unimportant. In each instance Chester was directly on the way, and a request so to load or unload tended to the carrier’s relief, and would, therefore, be favorably received. , No instance is shown of a vessel carrying her cargo back to Chester, under such a contract. The opinions of witnesses cited are of no value.
The libel is sustained, and a decree will be entered accordingly.