INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
v.
THE SCHOONER "GRACIE D. CHAMBERS," &C., PAYNE, CLAIMANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The International Paper Company sought recovery of prepaid freight on cargo loaded onto the schooner "Gracie D. Chambers" that was prevented from sailing when the Treasury Department imposed an embargo on vessels traveling through a wartime danger zone. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court of Appeals' reversal of judgment for the shipper, holding that the bill of lading's "Restraints of Princes and Rulers" clause and prepaid freight provision constituted a binding contract that protected the shipowner's right to retain freight even when voyage completion was prevented by governmental action beyond the carrier's control.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
Libel in admiralty on the schooner “Grade D. Chambers,” her tackle, etc., tó recover the sum of $5,845, prepaid freight on a cargo of paper loaded on the schooner for shipment from New York to Bordeaux, France, by the International Paper Company. Judgment went for libel-ant in the District Court. It was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals by a divided court. To this action this .writ is directed.
The facts as found by the Circuit Court of Appeals are as follows:
“September 14,1917, the schooner Grade D. Chambers began to load a general cargo in the Port of New York to be delivered at Bordeaux. Between September 27 and 29 the libelant Paper Company shipped 120 tons of print paper. “September 28 at 4:25 p. m. the Treasury Department at Washington telegraphed the Collector at the Port of New York to withhold clearance of all sailing vessels, any part of whose voyages would bring them within the danger zone. There was no official publication of this embargo, but it was put into effect beginning September 29 by the refusal of clearance to such vessels as they applied for them. Both the shippers and the shipowners had heard rumors of the embargo as early as October 1.
“October 3 the schooner moved out to an anchorage at the Red Hook Flats to save wharfage charges and to await clearance.,
“October 4 the freight was paid against delivery of the bill of lading.
“October 5 the master applied to the Collector for clearance, which was refused. He then applied. to-, the authorities at Washington to except this schooner from . the embargo on the ground that it had begun to load before the order was made. Refusal to allow an exception in her favor was not definitely and finally made until October 1Q> .Subsequently the cargo was discharged and the owners refused to return the freight paid.
“The bill of lading contained the following provisions:
“‘Restraints of Princes and Rulers excepted.’
“‘Freight for the said goods to be prepaid in full without discount retained and irrevocably ship and/or cargo lost or not lost.’ ”
The case was submitted with Nos. 449 and 450 [Allan-wilde Transport Corporation v. Vacuum Oil Co., ante, 377], and its primary question is, as there, the sufficiency of the clauses in the bill'of lading as a defense. In those cases we decided that the biff of lading expressed the contract of the parties and hence determined their rights and liabilities . And it is the safer reliance, the accommodation of all the circumstances that induced it. It was for the parties to consider them, and to accept their estimate is not to do injustice but accord to each the due of the law determined by their own judgment and convention, which represented, we may suppose, what' there was of advantage or disadvantage as well in the rates as in the risks.
It is asserted, however, that the vessel in this case did not break ground and that this fact distinguishes the case from Nos. 449 and 450. The fact does not deflect the principle of those cases. It was not made to depend upon the fact of breaking ground, but upon the bills of lading which provided for the payment of freight upon the shipment of the goods and the right to retain it though the goods were not carried, their carriage being prevented by causes beyond the control of the carrier. Therefore, upon the authority of those cases, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Alcoa S.S. Co., Inc. v. United States, 338 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1949)…21 How. 527, 533; Caze & Richaud v. Baltimore Ins. Co., 7 Cranch 358, 362; Robinson, Admiralty, § 82 (1939); Borchard, The Earning of Freight on Uncompleted Voyages, 30 Yale L. J. 362 (1921). E. g., International Paper Co. v. The Grade D. Chambers, 248 U. S. 387; Allanwilde Transport Corp. v. Vacuum Oil Co., 248 U. S. 377. Government Bill of Lading, Standard Form 1058, approved by the Comptroller General, August 24, 1928; 8 Comp. Gen. 698; “Condition 2” quoted p. 424 infra. 175 F. 2d 661, 663. Also print…
-
Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Dimon S.S. Corp., 290 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1933)…he Panama, 18 Fed. Cas., No. 10703; cf. The A. M. Bliss, 1 Fed. Cas., No. 274; Church v. Shelton, 5 Fed. Cas., No. 2714. (See also Allanwide Transportation Corp. v. Vacuum Oil Co., 248 U.S. 377, and International Paper Co. v. The Gracie D. Chambers, 248 U.S. 387, where the lien was denied because the freight was held to have been earned.) Lien for charges or purchase price of the cargo, collected-by the master from the consignee for account of the shipper as provided in the contract of affreightment: The Ha…
-
T. J. Stevenson & Co., Inc. v. 81, 629 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1980)…mages for the Nedon flour. That argument is based on the acceptable proposition that where the voyage is cancelled because of some fault of the carrier, prepaid freight and associated damages are not to be awarded. See, e. g., The Grade D. Chambers, 248 U.S. 387, 392, 39 S.Ct. 149, 150, 63 L.Ed. 318, 321 (1919). But we have just decided that Stevenson was not at fault in caring for the Nedon flour prior to loading, since the responsibility for pre-loading infestation of the flour was solely ADM’s. Nor are w…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Cent. Transp. Co., 171 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1898)
- The Kronprinzessin Cecilie, 244 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1917)
- Harriman v. N. Sec. Co., 197 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1905)
- THE Tornado. Ellis & Others v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 108 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1883)
- The Kimball, 3 Wall. 37 (U.S. 1865)
- Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1880)