*1 THE CARIB PRINCE. 655 Statement of the Case.
“ be there If any hardship petitioners rejection must for relief to another of this they grant, apply depart- ment of Government. ¥e are bound language act the Court of Private Land Claims.” creating The decree of the court below is Affirmed.
Mr. Shiras dissented. Mr. Justice McKenna, not heard the argument, having no took decision. part
THE PRINCE.1 CARIB appeals circuit court certiorari second circuit. Argued
No. 7, 8, 1898. March 1898. 23,May Decided court, this Under the settled doctrine of concurrent-decisions of. question upon fact courts followed unless two shown will.be erroneous, accepts indisputable clearly finding this court unseaworthy the time of Carib Prince was of the1- commencement voygge case, by reason of defect the tank re- opinion. ferred to in its The condition of unseawortliiness so found to exist -was not within the and, contained- in the bill of under the other facts record, -the damages discloséd owner was liable -for unseaworthy ship; nothing condition his and there is 19',1893, 105, February commonly in the act c. Stat. as . known act, liability. -theHarter which relieved him from that result- n ’ provision in that act or charterers from loss owners ing from “faults or in- errors vessel,” causes, designated way implies in no and from certain duly exempted diligent, that because the when he has been owner is thus thereby furnishing the law has him from the a sea- also relieved worthy vessel. The Carib an and steel built in Prince, iron steamer, England carriage passengers spring Josephine Wupperman The docket title of this case is W. v. The Steam Prince, &c., Legge, engines Claimant." Carib her Ernest TERM, 1897. Case.
Statement fitted with a She was tank, peak triangular freight. from the bottom of the to the between extending shape, *2 to tank intended hold water to be used as the decks, being The of tank were the sides the the in trimming ship. ballast end of it was the collision bulk- the the after sides of ship; feet and had a of was heads. twenty-four deep, capacity of beams, tons water. irons, strength- angle eighty-three the to sus- which enabled collision bulkhead bars, etc., ening water were on the inside it, tain the the strain against face in the No. 1 hold bulkhead tank, of the showing were smooth, plates except lap-jointed. being fastened the bulkhead a series bars were strengthening rivets, inside 1 hold, the heads No. rivets, of horizontal floor three more feet above thé of the hold. situated being was the Carib Prince chartered 14, 1892, On September for the Direct Line the Trinidad Steamship Company period while was in the vessel of four On August years. charterers, in the Trini- lying port-of possession number for a to New of cases of York, dad, voyage loading board, delivered on J. W. bitters "Wupper- were consigned in the 1 hold. The bill of man. were No. placed They contained the : following delivered consignor exceptions Queen’s robbers, act of God, enemies, pirates, rulers and people, restraints princes, in hulk or craft or on fire on board, shore, heat or explosion, boilers to or latent defects hull, tackle, accidents steam, or their .jettison, barratry, any and machinery, appurtenances, whatsoever, act, default or crew masters pilots, neglect ship, quarantine, and all and collision, stranding dangers accidents of whatever seas,'rivers steam navigation, nature or kind, always excepted.” left Trinidad on 31, 1893, August stopped Trinidad, at Grenada, short time north of' the Island of just the latter After direct to New York. port proceeded Grenada, and on the 3d of night leaving September, to, and tank referred direction ballast captain, peak bitters which the cases of which adjoined compartment CARIB PRINCE. THE' Parties. Counsel with, filled sea water. This was done for stored, were feet several ship,.which trimming the purpose she forward. The than next at the stern lower morning, it was discovered that the wAter after, the second morning a rivet hole tank into escaping through peak one of the rivets the head of- been No. 1 hold, having occasioned off. To recover forced goods into the water had thus the No. gotten filed her libel United States Mrs. hold, Wupperman for the Eastern District of New York. Court Ernest District on behalf and filed master, An owner, appeared Legge, after material answer, which, denying allegations contained the bill of exceptions the complaint, lading' as a and it was averred that defence, said were pleaded valid in the where the bills of were port issued. It “that the owner and were was also char- averred *3 used all her due (the terer diligence vessel) properly, have manned, and and in- outfitted, provisioned equipped, and her intended seaworthy capable voy- way performing all in and and used about the age, transportation in the merchandise and that if the question, alleged cargo in mentioned the libel as damaged alleged, was due latent rivets, defects certain irons, braces angle in the bulkhead 1 hold between the No. and the straps tank forward of or to some error fault it, just peak vessel the said management navigation filling on the as will tank more on the fully peak appear trial of this cause.” final 1891,
The case decree June, was tried- entered in the libel: 53 October Fed. following, dismissing taken to the From that decree an Circuit Rep,266. appeal which affirmed Court of the de-' Circuit, Second Appeals for.the A writ cree S. 390. of cer- Court. U. App. District here for allowed, tiorari the cause was review.' being brought Mr. Putnam 'Harrington appellant.
Mr. Mr. Everett P. J. Wheeler ParTcerKirlin for appellee. filed a brief for appellee.
yol. clxx —42 TERM, 1897.
Opinion of the Court. after White, statement, making foregoing Mr. of the court. the opinion delivered answer, averred, It was prop due to latent defects certain libellant erty in the bulkhead between braces and irons, rivets, straps angle forward it, tank 1 hold just the No. peak a.nd or fault some error tank on the Dis the said voyage.”
vessel peak filling Court of held that and the Circuit Appeals trict Court was a latent defect in a rivet from of the accident sole cause off, the hole which had come leaving through head in and the merchandise the libellant. upon the water poured found of the rivet was to have been condition This defective of iron had been fact that the injured caused quality too much the construction hammering, during it unfit weak; to sus that it became brittle rendering the tank with the reasonable tain filling pressure the vessel to be water while consequently causing the bills of were issued and at the time tinseaworthy settled doctrine of received on board. were The. the goods of two courts decisions is that the concurrent upon this court will be followed unless of fact shown clearly La Flecha v. Brauer, 168 U. S. erroneous. Compania v. S. cited; 1; and cases there Stuart 169 U. Hayden, As, S. after a careful Baker v. U. Cummings, we conclude that does not evidence, .exámination in their conclusion courts erred clearly lower appear that the Carib we fact, accept indisputable finding at the time of the commencement Prince was unseaworthy *4 in the tank reason of the defect by voyage question, above referred to. which arises fact, the first premise question
Upon ex- Did the in the Bill of is this: solution exceptions lading '. . .. owner from from empting ma- to or latent defects boilers hull, tackle, accidents n from him their relieve operate chinery appurtenances,” the state unseaworthiness existing caused by, damages PRINCE. THE CARIB Opinion the Court. the bill and at time inception voyage it is no % This longer fully
was signed question open, Caledonia,' decision in The answered by negative, to be recov- S. In that case the U. damage sought of the shaft ered had* been caused the breaking by at the a which existed steamer reason of latent defect com-. mencement of the liability, exemption voyage. aon was there asserted to exist, provision .which predicated “ loss or in the bill of owner relieving n ; defects boilers delays, steam machinery was held clause in therein.” It that operated, and did to condition of not relate a unsea- prospectively at the commencement of the worthiness existing that must a state of un-' be construed as contemplating only seaworthiness the voyage. arising during principle upon which the rested clauses' owner that ruling exempting from the a seaworthy' general furnishing obligation must bé not to limits, confined within and were be ex-. strict tended latitudinarian forced só construction implication toas whether unseaworthiness, a state of comprehend patent latent, at the commencement existing voyage. rule thus announced in but doc- The Caledonia expressed trine v. stated Lord State:Line Selborne Steamship Steel Cas; in a bill of lad- L. Co., E. App. do to receive so, if reason be possible ing ought, not construction implied- obliga- nullifying destroying owner tion of the proper per- provide fact formance which he has undertaken.” The case refers latent clause present exempting de- on in The Caledonia embraced defects, whilst passed this, not case out of control of fects does take generally, The decision rule laid down The Caledonia. general on the character based; Caledonia particular that, on the there referred but to, ground defects general unless words to were language there express contrary, defects, be held to clause would not apply com- latent, whether when the voyage existing patent desires the that where the menced. In words, *5 1897; TERM, QCTOBER Opinion of the Court. to cover a condition of exemption unseaworthiness at existing commencement of he must unequivocally An contract. illustration of such contract was found in The 12 Prob. referred to in Laertes, 187, Div. opinion The. In that casé the bill of lading stipulated, Caledonia. no.t latent but defects, all such merely against against defects ex- time of the isting shipment.
The coñdition of unseaworthiness found to exist not being then'within the contained in the bill of exceptions, lading, remains to.consider whether under the facts only disclosed aside from the record, the bill of owüer was liable for the damages únsea- condition of the worthy ship. that, contention as the owner due exercised to make the diligence he ship seaworthy, liable, because, not under the state consequently present no law, owner is under to longer obligation furnish a but to seaworthy ship, exercise due to diligence do so. The radical the duties and change obligations owners involves is asserted proposition to arise Stat, from the statute c. February 1893, 105, described as the Harter Act. commonly The proposition' rests on the assumed of the second third sections meaning act. The second section as that' is. follows:
“ Sjso. 2. That it shall be lawful vessel trans- any merchandise or or porting from between the property ports the United States owner, her America foreign ports, master, insert bill manager, agent, any document covenant any shipping agreement whereby owners said exercise 'obligations and outfit man, properly equip, provision .[to] said and to make said vessel, vessel seaworthy capable her intended performing voyage, whereby obligations of tile master, officers, handle servants agents carefully and stow her and to same, care for deliver cargo properly shall in lessened, weakened avoided.” anywise
Now, deal not with patent foregoing provisions but owner to furnish general duty, seaworthy ship, tl\e sololv with his; himself from so power by. doing THE CARIB PRINCE.
Opinion of the Court. when the conditions exacted contract, statute particular when the owner he has used Because due dili- may, obtain. contract furnish a seaworthy ship, *6 against gence obliga- at all it does not follow that seaworthiness, tion of when he to made no contract himself he is has nevertheless- from a and is relieved furnishing seaworthy ship, subjected the due .To make it to only duty using diligence. unlawful in a from insert a contract seaworthi- to provision exempting not been cannot where due has used, ness diligence any rule be treated as of construction that where sound implying there been is contract due has no used, diligence furnish a to has owner, the his vessel obligation seaworthy The exist. construction relied on- ceased fallacy the in that because has consists statute forbidden assuming from owner furnish duty contracting against unless he has been that a seaworthy diligent, thereby that' has declared without contract no statute obligation in due a obtains the event furnish seaworthy diligence in the same is has been used. And involved the con- fallacy is the third tention that this construction section supported by act. third section is as follows: if the 3. owner of That any transporting “Sec. to or from or United merchandise any port property shall due to make exercise States America diligence said vessel in all manned, respects seaworthy properly or vessel, owners, her owner neither equipped supplied, held charterers, or or be responsible shall become agent or or from faults errors navigation or loss resulting vessel, nor shall the her owner of said vessel, the management liable master, held for losses or charterers, or owners, agent other acts waters, or from the sea navigable arising dangers defect, inherent or vice or the God, enemies, quality or public seizure insufficiency from carried, package, thing Or act omis- from or for loss any resulting under legal process; his or. or owner of agent represen- sion of goods, shipper life or save property tative, from attempting saving service.” such in rendering or from deviation any result- or charterers of the owners exemption TERM, Brewer, Dissenting Opinion: Brown, JJ. from “faults errors
ing arid certain other vessel,” causes, no designated that because owner is thus when way implies exempted that has been the law duly he has diligent also thereby him a relieved duty vessel. furnishing seaworthy from risks character, of described when immunity used, has been cannot be so as extended to cause when statute he has say been duly diligent accordance with the tenor of exempted in. from limited and statute risks which are named designated alsq therein, relieved, but claim of respects every description, furnishing seaworthy These of all considerations dispose questions ship. arising the record. on decrees rendered both Circuit Court Appeals in the must be reversed, District Court and the case be *7 the to District Court
.remanded proceedings for further with this And it opinion. ordered. conformity Mr, Justice with whom Brown, concurred Me. Beewee, dissenting. the reasons stated me in
For The Caledonia, U. S. by 157 I am 124, 140, to dissent the of the compelled opinion in this case. The accident in court that case occurred by of a shaft, the its been breaking propeller owing having weakened with on by seas meeting extraordinarily heavy No defect the or could visible, previous voyages. ship been detected the if have usual reasonable the by means, had been taken out and shaft examined. of the The minority court, general conceding principle that, contract for the unless sea, . carriage goods by otherwise there is a on the expressly stipulated, warranty part that at the time of ship ship seaworthy was of that .beginning opinion from the losses 'Caledonia by claimed ,(cid:127) bill- exception lading “of . . that defects therein.” It was machinery or. argued .. PRINCE. 663
THE CARIB Brown, Opinion: Brewer, Dissenting JJ. inserted for was obviously purpose
this exception (cid:127) which, without, from some liability it would was not be'subject. evidently such exception, limited to mere to be intended breakages machinery since occur after should voyage began, breaking is treated the stress .weather as an sound machinery through . \yhich the accident or would inevitable peril not, whether there were an and the not be liable, exception were cited as cases sustaining proposition: following Law, William L. R. Mar. 285; Lindsay, Virgo, Asp. L. R. 3 Ad. & Ec. ; 561; 338 The Miranda, P. C. Cargo P. D. 51 Fed. 187; Curlew, ex Laertes, Rep. under In the case consideration is more exception spe
cific, from loss or from . exempts tackle, hull, accidents latent defects boilers machin It was admitted that or their the sole ery, appurtenances.” in a rivet from defect wThich. was a latent cause of the accident this defective that condition off; had come the head fact that the iron'had caused quality rivet was. of the vessel too the construction been during injured brittle and weak, had become so that it much hammering, the reasonable to sustain it unfit pressure thus rendering while at sea. tank with water by filling courts that abundant found by It was further below of the vessel; construction had been used which occurred at the latent one in the rivet was a the defect and was not dis- not discovered that it was time was built; she the exercise of all coverable at that time subsequently, of examination, and methods tests the known and customary *8 which were all employed. was meant to what then arises as “ was not intended evidently of latent defects.”
exception of after the such beginning to refer to defects which became or other weather perils stress of voyage through or for such defects sea, be liable would not since the ship A not a bill lading. whether excepted breakages, machinery an breakage accident never liable ” “ defects the word occasioned by perils TERM, 1897.' Opinion: Dissenting Brown, Brewer, JJ. used in that
never connection. The words “latent defect,” as understood, at ordinarily apply something existing time other vehicle constructed, such as not discovered could not be discovered by ordinary methods examination. "avessel from To the con- of such defect is a neither unreasonable nor sequences unjust, and most of the modern bills contain a lading stipulation to that effect.
The case of the ex 12 P. is in Cargo Laertes, D. point. Bills of under which the cargo contained, shipped, “ the clauses among perils, warranted excepted sea- “ so far as care can and own- worthy only ordinary provide,” not to ers be liable for detention loss, ... if . . . latent defects in directly arising indirectly boilers, . even at time of machinery, existing ship- down a ment.”’ Laertes broke from- latent defect which could not have been the exercise of all discovered reason- it able and was held that the care, exception defects,- lament if it did not at all events limited, the abrogate, warranty which the law would otherwise was sea- imply at the I do not worthy beginning voyage. regard- “ ” (cid:127) words even at time of as existing shipment adding any- latent defects,” words since in our thing' view of those words, must understood, have existed ordinarily they time shipment. in the case hardship under consideration ruling the more manifest from the fact that Prince the Carib
¡appears steamer, was British that the bill of signed n at. Trinidad, law. port governed English I with the court the Harter Act agree majority in' cuts no this case. While it is figure possible framers of this act have intended to exonerate may ships where dili- unseaworthiness consequences had been used to make them must be con- gence seaworthy, ceded that the of the third section does language express such since exonerates them loss or dam- intent, from faults or errors in (cid:127)age resulting manage- ment. IBut think that in- recent cases this court have *9 & RAILWAY v. PACIFIC ARCHIBALD. TEXAS
Opinion of the Court. a most severe measure of impracticable liability imposed — with which one great hardship operates upon prudent one which is calculated to owner, and careful fur- invite in the direction the Harter Act. ther legislation D COMPANY v. AN PACIFIC RAILWAY TEXAS
ARCHIBALD. appeals error court circuit for fifth CIRCUIT. 15, 1898.
No. 20T. Submitted April May 28, 1898. Decided duty company is the of a railroad to use reasonable care to see that the road, employed on its both those cars owns those which it_ roads, good purposes from other are in order and fit Receives which they intended; duty employés are and this owes its as well public. as to company upon employé right rely An of a.railroad has a be- performed, as, employment ing entering while he. assumes the business, ordinary incident to the he risks does assume the risk aris- perform employer’s neglect ing owing his the duties to him with appliances respect to the furnished. is stated in the The case opinion.
Mr. John Mr. Winslow 8. F. Pierce and Mr. David Dillon, D. Dunccm in error. for; plaintiff Mr.
Mr. James J. for defend- Henry Shepherd Turnar ant in error.
Mr. White delivered the of the court. opinion This commenced in a state was removed suit, court, Circuit Eastern District of Court of the United States for the on Texas, the defendant incorporated ground under the laws the United States. The object