Warren v. Portland Terminal Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On agreed statement. On August 27, 1917 the ship “Binghampton” arrived at Portland with a cargo of coal consigned to the plaintiffs and destined. for Cumberland Mills.. Under the' contract of carriage between the plaintiffs and the ship owners four days were allowed for loading and discharging. Beyond such time demurrage at a stipulated rate was provided for. Two days, twelve and one half hours of the time remained for discharging.
Read the full summary
On agreed statement. On August 27, 1917 the ship “Binghampton” arrived at Portland with a cargo of coal consigned to the plaintiffs and destined. for Cumberland Mills.. Under the' contract of carriage between the plaintiffs and the ship owners four days were allowed for loading and discharging. Beyond such time demurrage at a stipulated rate was provided for. Two days, twelve and one half hours of the time remained for discharging. The ship was not unloaded until September 10th. The plaintiffs thereupon became liable and paid to the ship owners as demurrage the sum of $7,208.81. The…
1Opinion of the CourtDeasy, J.
The plaintiffs, S. D. Warren & Company, paper manufacturers, are a partnership, with mills at Cumberland Mills and elsewhere. The defendant owns and operates wharves in Portland and a line of railroad between its wharves and Cumberland Mills. Its wharves are equipped with apparatus • for- discharging coal and other merchandise from ships. Its tariff schedule which as a public service corporation it has filed with the Public Utilities Commission provides among other things a rate for discharging coal.
On August 27th, 1917 the ship “Binghampton” arrived at Portland with a cargo of coal consigned…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Eastern R. Co. of NM v. LittlefieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Empire Transp. Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Coal & Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Geismer v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Ecton v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis R. W. Co. v. HollowellIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Saliba v. New York Central R.R. Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1929
- Seaboard Air Line RR Co. v. Lake Region Packing Ass'nDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
- Public Utilities Commission v. Johnson Motor TransportSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1951
- Ritchie v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Warner, Lorance Gammon v. St. L.-s.F. Ry. Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.