Court Opinion

ID: 8629956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:36:02.570802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:44.073499
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Circuit Justice.
The ship insists that the loss, in this case, occurred by the mismanagement of the lightermen, in putting the tierces into the slings, and, also, in starting the horses which worked the tackle, while they were thus imperfectly slung. The libellants insist, that the loss hai>pened after the tierces had passed into the possession and control of the ship. The case resulted in a difference, both as to the facts and the usage, in hoisting a, cargo from the lighter to the ship, between the lighter-men and the stevedores, the lightermen insisting that their duty was performed when the tierces were properly placed on the slings and hooked to the tackle, and the stevedores insisting that it was performed only when the tierces reached the i ailing of the ship and were ready to be taken from the tackle to the deck. The stevedores are in the service of the vessel, which is responsible to the shipper for the damage done by them to his goods in putting them on board. In this case, the apparatus by which the tierces were hoisted from the lighter, including the horses, belonged either to the ship or to the stevedores, which, as I infer from th? evidence, is according to the general usage. I am inclined to think, that when, under these circumstances, cargo is to be delivered from the lighter at the side of the ship, the responsibility of the lightermen ceases, as a general rule, when the cargo is properly placed on the slings and hooked to the tackle; and that the duty of the ship begins with the hoisting of it to the deck of the ship. It is then in the possession of the apparatus of the ship, or the stevedores, and under their control and direction.
It is. however, insisted, on the part of the claimants, that, in this particular case, the master of the lighter gave the order to the horses to move before the tierces were properly secured in the slings. But this is disputed, and the evidence is conflicting. The court below charged the ship, and, in my view, the proofs fairly warranted the finding. Decree affirmed.