Legal Opinion · Dissent

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 28, 1966No. 30255_1Published

1DissentHays, Circuit Judge

I dissent.

The carrier is not entitled to recover demurrage because it was unable to perform its duty of unloading. Debate as to which was prior in default, the carrier or the consignee, is largely a futile exercise in logic. But if priority must be determined then surely the goods had to be unloaded by the carrier before they could be received by the consignee. Where neither party can perform then neither party can recover. (See Williston on Contracts, 3d Ed. § 875 (1962).)

I have found no other cases which involved the same situation as that presented by the case at bar. The cases cited by…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Yone Suzuki v. Central Argentine Ry., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
  2. Aktieselskabet Dampskibselskabet Af 1912 v. 20,029 Bags of SugarCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
  3. United States v. Atlantic Refining Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1951
  4. Bruusgaard v. AcostaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
  5. Compagnia Di Navigazione Mauritius Rome v. KulukundisDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1959

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API