DOUSE t'. SABGEN'!. i'
696
DOUSE 17.
SARG:ENT'
.al. 8O,l89L)
(ma,trlct 1. SmPPING Ii OWNER
CO,wrt, & D. ,New York.
A part owner; ha'l"ing ,agreed with 'Uhe othe, ownel:& tc> run the vessel on sharea, and pay her, disbU,rsements, is owner pro hac and personally liable to the master, whom he has emplOyed, for ,,11 his wages ana disbursements. , ,.' , "
PRo HAO VICE-WAGES.
8AMB'-LiMITED LUllILI'l'y....DISlltlRSDBNTS. ' '"
, ", The vessel being *e act of 1884 limiting llabUlty in favor of the other Part,,' ""ll,wners as to th,e, m,aliter,'SdiSb,,urs, · but,"not as, 'to the mll8te,',r's wages; ' th,e other owners are' entitled tram the owner pro HtiC'Vic& " ,
.. ADHIRALTY-PRACTICE'-AM:IUIDHENT. , , '
The owner pro hac vwe beiug sued with others as joint owner, aDamendmant of ,the libel was permitted to', reooveribedfsbUrsementailfor whicb he ,only wasllable; but. no properaocount'having,beeu submitted to him by the master, no,eosta up tll the'presenttime 'were alloweellDor further proceedings. until auaooount, With, proper vouchel'a\ bad,been'«lDmltted, and' 'oppol'tumty' affordedforl8ttle-
an"
IDeat. '
" ;
,
",m, Ad;miralty. F,." H. M,' Sargen', e,.nd otheril to'recover wages '1\8 "',,' " , ," . ;; ; Wilcox, Ada1n8 &:- Green, for libelant. " ' Wing, Shoudy &:- Putnam and Mr. Buningham,'for'respondents. BnoWN, J. The defendant Gower is liable as an owner pro hac 'Vice for the1lib(:Jlant's wages andEishursements, aB respectstne dtpartment which to supply. Webbv.Peirce,10urt.l04. I t'M,Dk{the defense of lI.limited liability is good as respects the other OWfie1'8, ,the vessel h,aving been lost, and no freigbtrealized; but, this defens8 t iJ uDder the act of June 26, 1884, (23 St. at Large, p. .s3,e. 121, '§ 18,) does not, 8Jt:tend to the master's wages, forwbich the other defendants, as well 'aB Gower, are also personally liable. But asrespecttl this the ,defendant ,Gow:er would be bound to indemnify the other, dwners. The fact ,that Gower was not sued as owner pro hac 'Vice, but as a joint, owner with the other defendants, does not ''entitle Gowei' ,to a dismissal as '1'espectshim. 'An 8nlendment that might properly state the case against Gower would not present a wholly new cause of action; but wQuld:be,simply a different mode of .stating the respective liabilities of the deffilDdants for the same wages or disburseme.nts. It is, therefore, within rule 24 of the supreme court in admiralty, and the proper amendment should be allowed. But, as respects Gower, a resident of Maine,who claims that no, proper 8,0.count,had been submitted to him, and, who has never contested his liabilityfor any sum Justly due 'the libelant, theam,endment should be withouticosts of the suit to this time; 1l-ndno Order of reference to increasethlfexpenses ofthesuit should: beordered,iLthe libelant!s behalf untilapropei' account in detail, together with therefor"Mfar as practicable; has been .submittegar.easonable,timeto Gower's,qounsel, CIlrdeposited in the ,clerk's,offioefor inepeotion,aqd
4-,
Jlue.'
, '" '
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 48·
. THE BitAXER
H.G.JOHNSON. G.JOHNSON. '
et al. ".' THE H.
"(mltr&ct OoWl"t, 8. D. New York. November 12, 1891.)
1.
CollDfON {lBASBB,
A commoJ!.(lanier vessel .uuder the 118ual bill of lading takes the dsk of damage to goods througb QOntact with otbergoods, Wh,en,. not caused by peril of the sea,' as respects a'bunajW,e purchaser, though the gOOdS are shipped by the charterer., ' " .' . " ' ,
,_
..u u,GE '
I'ROJI
OTUK ,
GOODS-VESSEL'S RISK-BoNA.FIDB ' _
PuB·
lW
On delivery of plumbago In barre1Bsblpped under the usual bill.oOading, a part weDe,found;ilamaged by cocoa-nut oilostowed above the plumbago. In other re,:spectsthe cargQ,was well stowed. There was no shift4ng, the USual, dunnage, and ·',no extraordiIiaryllerils on the vo;\Jage. 'l'lledamage arose ,either, from unfit oil casks, or improper stowage of such casks over the plumbago. HeZd, that the ship. took the risk and was liable for damage. H .'j'
SAME-LEAXAGIIl'OPOU..
·/··r
1',_
: _,_
." ,.
",
: _,
"
_J
·
H. G.
J.In November, 1890, Delmege, Reid & being char.. teters Jot'the .British bark' H. G., Johnson, shipped ,on 'boarq.- of her at ColombO'2,145 barrels of plumbago; which they had previously, sold to. the libelants, for :vi hich a bill of lading was signed by the master, reciting thereceipt'of the goods" in good order and well conditi()ned,l', and agreeing to deliver the same in like good order at New York, to the order of Winter & Smilie, agents, :"theaet of God, the queen's enemies, fire, and perils of the seas" excepted. Winter & Sm,iliewere the agents of the libelants, On the delivery of the plumbago at New,York, 466 of the barrelswere:folind damaged by cocoa-nut oil, apart ofwhich had been stowed abov-e the plumbago. The libel was filed to roooverthis damage. The' evidenbe leaves no doubt that the damage arose from the leakage of theoB. Aside, from fheplacing of oil casks over the plunibago, the cargo. 'was in generialwell stowed. There was no shifting of cargo on the voyage. the uslial -dunnage, aud the ship,encountered no extraordinary'perils. The claimants' witnesses ascribed/the leakage to the poor qualityof.ithe casks in which tbe cocoa-nut oil'was,shipped, tbe casks proving;w have ·been not well-seasoned, but green, and subject to. shrinkage dUring the warm weather of the passage. TheoH, as well as the phmibl1go, Was shipped by Delmege, Reid & Co., but the master snperinteildtld the stowageimd arrangement of the cargo. Tltle bills of ladingin thm c!l.Se 'import the ordinary contract and liability ofa common carrier; iTheycontain no exceptions save those above stated. In the .cnseof'Mtl8Ipool &G. :W. Steam OJ. v. Phe:ni:.t Ins: Co., 129 U. S. 397, 437, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469, Mr. Justice GRAY, in'delivering the opinion of the court. says:
Ce.;