Court Opinion

ID: 8636149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:45:34.22939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:56.092030
License: Public Domain

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.
1. The first question which arises is, whether there was a voluntary stranding of the ship, in such a sense as to authorize a general average, among ship, freight, and cargo, of the loss and damage caused by the stranding. The defendants contend that there was no voluntary stranding. The only damage to the ship, which it is claimed by the plaintiffs should be contributed for in this case, in general average, is the damage caused by her lying on the uneven bottom, when stranded. That damage was manifestly caused by the stranding, and by nothing else. There was a peril common to both vessel and cargo, where the vessel was anchored, at the time the master determined to strand her. That common peril was the danger of their going down together in deep water, where they would be entirely submerged, and where the cargo would have remained much longer under water, and been much more injured, and where the expense of raising them would have been much greater. This common peril was imminent and apparently inevitable, unless the ship should voluntarily incur the damage which has happened to her from lying on the uneven bottom, on the flats, in shallower water, for the purpose of putting the bulk of the cargo in a position where it would not .be required to remain so long under water as if it had sunk in the deeper water, and for the purpose of preventing a part of it, as it turned out, from being at all wet. The injury to the ship by her lying on the uneven bottom on the flats where she was stranded, was a voluntary jactus of the ship, in that regard, to avoid the peril above named, and was a transfer of such peril, in that regard, from vessel and cargo to vessel alone. The attempt to avoid the peril was successful. All the elements exist in the case which make up a voluntary stranding, as settled by the supreme court. Barnard v. Adams, 10 How. [51 U. S.] 270, 303. The cargo was rescued, by the stranding, from the peril of the deep water, and the vessel was injured by such stranding. The vessel suffered to benefit the cargo. The case is, in my judgment, a very plain one for a general average contribution.
2. The adjusters did not make any improper allowance to the ship. They only allowed for the damage caused to her by lying on the uneven bottom. They did not allow for any damage caused to her by the-swelling of the linseed. The water which swelled the linseed came through the holes made by the ice, which was a peril of the sea.
3. The adjusters were correct in not allowing, in general average, for any damage done to the cargo by water which came through the holes made by the ice. The evidence shows that all the damage done by water to the cargo was done by water which came through those holes. The fact that the water entered through the holes after the determination was made to strand the vessel, has nothing to do with the question.
4. In view of the terms of the average bond, and of the usage of the port of New York, in like cases, as proved, I think the adjusters acted properly in taking, as the contributory value of the freight, one-half of the gross freight agreed to be paid for the voyage on which the disaster occurred.
The principles on which the adjusters proceeded having been correct, I think the evidence fully warrants the results they arrived at.
There must be a judgment, on the verdict, for the plaintiffs.