Court Opinion

ID: 8633226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:40:54.253981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:50.606716
License: Public Domain

CADWALADER, District Judge.
The interpretation of the contract is to be made with reference to its peculiar subject. The argument for the respondents does not, in this respect, meet the exigency of the question. The question was argued as if molasses were merely to be considered as a liquid liable to extraordinary leakage from fermentation, and the casks were to be considered as merely liable to the consequent loss of contents. This argument overlooks the fact that, in consequence of the liability to such fermentation, the casks are carried by sea with their bungs out. The effect of the voyage is, ordinarily, to empty many of them, and it is known, from experience, that, without any extraordinary stress of weather, casks are often turned with the bungs downward, and that when this occurs the position is very seldom, if ever, righted. The only way, therefore, of obtaining a certain hire for the vessel carrying such a cargo is that which was adopted in this contract; that is, to estimate the freight as if every cask were full, applying the measure to casks which are quite empty as well as to those which are partially so. That this was the purpose of the contract cannot be doubted when the words are properly applied. From a manuscript report of a ease before Judge Ware he may be supposed to have decreed full freight upon such a estimate where a loss of the whole contents had occurred from extraordinary perils of the sea. If such were the question here I might perhaps pause before deciding it. But here the loss of contents occurred from no such extraordinary cause. Decree for libellants with costs.