Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

The Edwin I. Morrison

Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U.S. 199 (1894)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1894-04-30
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice Fueler delivered the opinion of the court. *210 Assuming, as we must, that the damages awarded by the District Court resulted from the loss of the cap and plate covering the bilge-pump hole, the question to be determined is whether that loss was occasioned by a peril of the sea or by the condition of that covering as it was when the vessel entered upon her voyage. If through some defect or weakness the plate and cap arid the screws which secured it came off, or if the cap and plate-were so made or so fastened.as to be liable to be knocked off by any ordinary blows from objects washed by the sea across the decks, then the vessel was not seaworthy in that respect, and the loss could not be held ■ to come within the exception of perils of the sea, although the vessel encountered adverse winds and heavy weather. By the charter party it was agreed on the part of the vessel that she should be tight, staunch, strong, and in every way fitted for the voyage, and the rule is well settled that the charterer is bound to see that his vessel is seaworthy and suitable for the service for which she is to be employed, while no obligation to look after the matter rests upon the owner of the cargo. The Northern Belle, 9 Wall. 526; Work v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed The Edwin I. Morrison. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
145 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Cargo A charter party provision agreeing that the vessel is tight, staunch, strong, and in every way fitted for the voyage binds the owner to see that the vessel is actually seaworthy and suitable for the service on which she is to be employed; this warranty is absolute and is not excused by the fact that a defect is latent and unknown to the owner, and no corresponding obligation to look after seaworthiness rests upon the owner of the cargo. 153 U.S. at 210
  2. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Perils of the Sea — Burden of Proof Where goods are damaged by sea water and the carrier invokes the exception of perils of the sea, the burden of proof rests upon the carrier to show that the vessel was in good condition and suitable for the voyage at its inception and that the loss was caused by extraordinary contingencies not reasonably to have been anticipated; the exception of perils of the sea does not exonerate the carrier from liability for loss or damage to which its negligence, or that of its servants, contributed. 153 U.S. at 210–211
  3. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Seaworthiness The owner's duty to establish seaworthiness requires such inspection as will actually ascertain that the vessel's fittings are secure; where the owner relies upon external appearances alone rather than known tests capable of revealing insecurity, the owner takes the risk of being unable to prove the safety of those fittings if loss occurs through their displacement, and ordinary practice among owners of not using such precautions does not excuse the failure to sustain the burden. 153 U.S. at 214
  4. Admiralty & Maritime Law — Seaworthiness The presumption that a vessel's seaworthiness at the commencement of the voyage continues thereafter does not avail a carrier unless seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage has first been established by adequate inspection, and any doubt as to whether the loss resulted from a defect in the vessel or from extraordinary perils of the sea must be resolved against the carrier. 153 U.S. at 213
  5. General — Federal Practice — Review of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Findings labeled as ultimate facts, and conclusions of law, that are determined by the interpretation which the law puts upon the circumstances stated in the preceding findings are open to revision on appeal, and are not conclusive as findings of fact. 153 U.S. at 214–215