G. Amsinck & Co. v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co.

(after stating the facts as above). The negligence of the third assistant engineer is admitted, and respondents’ case is rested wholly on the third section of the Harter Act (27 Statutes, 445). This section is as follows:

Under the maritime law the owner is charged with the duty of furnishing a seaworthy vessel. Carver on Carriage by Sea (6th Ed.) § 17; Sumner v. Caswell (D. C.) 20 F. 249, 252 ; The Eugene Vesta (D. C.) 28 F. 762 ; Bowring v. Thebaud, 56 F. 520 , 5 C. C. A. 640 . The Harter Act has not abrogated this principle. The Carib Prince, 170 U. S. 655, 662 , 18 S. Ct. 753 , 42 L. Ed. 1181 ; The Silvia, 171 U. S. 462, 464 , 19 S. Ct. 7 , 43 L. Ed. 241 . The third section of the Harter Act provides that, when thei owner “shall exercise duo diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied,” he shall be relieved of certain enumerated responsibilities. The burden devolves upon the owner to prove the seaworthiness of the vessel or dne diligence to make her so. Evidence was received from which the District Court was •warranted in holding that the Newport, when her voyage from Christobal to San Francisco began, was “in all…