Legal Opinion

Kainer v. The Bergenseren

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 22, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions

In Admiralty. The above libel was filed by five consignees of cargo on board the steamer Bergenseren on a voyage from New York to Port de Paix, claiming about $6,000 damages to their goods. The goods consisted of beef, pork, lard, butter, etc., known as “wet cargo,” and were stowed in the water-ballast tank, a compartment nearly amid-ships, and separated from the fire-room by an iron bulk-head.

Read the full summary

In Admiralty. The above libel was filed by five consignees of cargo on board the steamer Bergenseren on a voyage from New York to Port de Paix, claiming about $6,000 damages to their goods. The goods consisted of beef, pork, lard, butter, etc., known as “wet cargo,” and were stowed in the water-ballast tank, a compartment nearly amid-ships, and separated from the fire-room by an iron bulk-head. The floor of the tank rested upon the ship’s ribs, and was 17 inches lower than the floor of the fire-room on the opposite side of the bulk-head. The vessel left New York October 28, 1887, and arrived…

1Opinion of the Court

BROWN, J.,

(after dating the fads as above.) The evidence is not sufficient to determine with certainty how the water got into the tank. If it came from the fire-room, through the rivet-hole, it could not have risen more than about 17 inches; while the ship’s protest, made at Port de Paix, describes the tank as “filled with sea water,”(an exaggeration, doubtless;) and the subsequent protest made in New York says that, while discharging cargo, “about 3 feet of water was found in the ballast tank.” The first engineer testifies, moreover, that before arrival at Port de Paix the water in the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Work v. LeathersSupreme Court of the United States · 1878

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Atlantic Transport Co. v. Rosenberg Bros. & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
  2. California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Corp. v. RideoutCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
  3. Lunney v. The ConcordDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1893

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

Powered by the Exa API