Court Opinion

ID: 8637815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:48:10.878625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.358842
License: Public Domain

BENEDICT, District Judge.
As to the question of demurrage. I am of the opinion that the libellants are not entitled to recover demurrage for the period of detention caused by the fact that the boat was frozen in at Elizabethport, where she went to repair.
The collision occurred in the port of New York, where, as the evidence shows, the repairs could have been effected promptly, and without any risk of freezing up. It is not show;n that the repairs could have been done more cheaply at Elizabethport than íd New York, nor does it appear that that was the home port of the vessel, nor is any reason whatever suggested by the evidence for taking the boat to Elizabethport.
The taking of the boat, without any sufficient reason, to a port where she was in danger of being frozen up, and where she was, in fact, frozen up immediately upon her arrival. was an error on the part of the master of the canal-boat, for the consequences of which he alone is responsible. He cannot charge the respondents with a loss which the exercise of ordinary prudence on his part would have avoided.
The report must, therefore, be modified, by reducing the demurrage to a period of time sufficient'to complete the repairs under ordinary circumstances. Any extra expense for taking the boat to Elizabethport must, for the same reason, be disallowed.
The next objection is to the allowance of $1.50 per ton, as the damage to the cargo of coal by mud and water. It appears that, the damage was never appraised, and the coal was sold at private sale, in its damaged condition, without notice to the respondents, who were to be held responsible for the loss.
I disapprove of this mode of procedure. The damage to the coal should have been ascertained by a proper examination and appraisal, or by a sale upon notice to the respondents, or in some other way not open to the suspicions always attaching to a private sale of damaged property without notice. The allowance for this damage to the coal I permit to stand, simply because it appears affirmatively that the coal was wet and muddy. and I am of the opinion, looking at the whole evidence, that a sale at auction, on notice, would probably have shown as much loss as has been allowed; but I shall mark my disapproval of the course pursued, by casting upon the libellants the fees of the witnesses called to show the loss upon the coal. Had the coal been sold on notice, the necessity of any witnesses would probably have been avoided.
If the amount to be decreed in accordance with this opinion is not agreed upon, let the case be sent to the commissioner, to reform the report in the particulars referred to.