Court Opinion

ID: 8852020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:16:55.555462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:31.903941
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court. I do not think that the master sacrificed the' uninjured cattle simply for the sake of the comfort and convenience of the ship. I agree with the commissioner when he says, “I do not doubt the entire good faith of the master, and that he would gladly have saved the other cattle, as well as the thirty-nine that remained on board.” The theory of the libel is that the master and crew of the vessel became panic-stricken, and drove the cattle overboard, and the evidence more nearly supports this theory than the one which has been adopted. I think a prudent regard for the safety of the ship and crew, in view of the situation as it was at the time, justified him in clearing the deck of the mass of dead and wounded cattle, and that it is idle to say that there was any practicable opportunity, upon that storm-swept deck, to separate the dead cattle from the wounded and dangerous live ones. After the event, and with the wisdom which comes from retrospect, it is not difficult to conjecture, in case of disaster, what might have been'done that was not done; but Lam satisfied from the proofs that the master did everything which a prudent and honest navigator would have done, under the circumstances, from the time he hove to his vessel until the hurricane was over, and that the loss of the cattle was caused by perils of the sea, and therefore within one of the excepted risks of the bill of lading.