The Eastern Prince

Good Law
21 F.2d 79·1927 A.M.C. 985·1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1321
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 12, 1927No. 17740California491 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This libel is brought by the consignee of a shipment of linseed oil to recover the value of an alleged shortage in a shipment by the Eastern Prince from Hull, England, to San Francisco, Cal. The libel as amended claimed delivery to the ship of-2,806,663 pounds of oil and discharge at San Francisco of 2,733,942 pounds, a shortage of 72,721 pounds. At the trial libelant was unable to prove loading of two lighter loads of oil, and abandoned its claim, except as to 15,814 pounds of oil. It was stipulated .at the trial that respondents, Prince Line, Limited, and Furness-Withy & Co., Limited, should be made to respond for the carrier’s liability; also that the Eastern Princb was a common carrier. It was further stipulated that the market value of linseed oil in bulk at San Francisco at the time of .the discharge of the-cargo in question was 83% cents per gallon of 7% pounds.

.The evidence is sufficient to show that there was a shortage in the amount of 11,334 pounds, plus an amount lost while the vessel •was loading, due to a break in the pipe line, which, from the evidence, I find to have been not more than 2,240 pounds, a total shortage of 13,574 pounds.

Respondents seek to relieve…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.