Legal Opinion
Riley v. A Cargo of Iron Pipes
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 2, 1889PublishedCited by 9 opinions
In Admiralty. Action for demurrage.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The contract being silent on the subject of demurrage, tbe burden of proof, in order to recover for demurrage, is upon the libelant to show that the consignee is chargeable with some negligence in unloading the vessel, or that he exceeded some customary period which, by implication, is a part of the contract. A Cargo of Lumber, 23 Fed. Rep. 301; The Z. L. Adams, 26 Fed. Rep. 655; The John Cottrell, 34 Fed. Rep. 907; Railroad Ties, 38 Fed. Rep. 254. bio customary period is proved in the present case, and the testimony is conflicting as to the precise timo necessary to unload the cargo. If it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- 4,885 Bags of LinseedSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
3Cited by9 opinions
- Empire Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Coal & Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Burrill v. CrossmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1895
- Burrill v. CrossmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1894
- Williscroft v. Cargo of CyrenianDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1903
- Ben Franklin Transp. Co. v. Federal Sugar Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.