The Hindanger

Good Law
76 F.2d 13·1935 A.M.C. 563·1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 2446
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 13, 1935No. 7275California2,079 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Norcross, J.

Appellants, libelants in the court below, filed libels against the motorship Hindanger et al., respondents and appellees, to recover damages alleged to have been occasioned by delay and deviation of the said motor-ship Hindanger on a voyage from the ports of Seattle and San Francisco to Buenos Aires, Argentina, occasioning loss by reason of decline in the market value of 11,-000 and 4,000 cases of eggs, shipped by appellants from said Pacific Coast ports respectively, on said Hindanger for delivery at the port of Buenos Aires. The libels were consolidated for trial, and the consolidated action referred to a commissioner, as special master, by stipulation of the parties and order of the court, “for hearing, determination and report.” The report of the special master was by the court confirmed. From final decrees declaring respondents to be without fault in the premises and dismissing the libels, libelants have appealed.

The libels alleged that each of the shipments was accomplished under an oral contract of affreightment, which, it is charged, was breached by the appellees. Each libel declares that the motorship deviated on the voyage in question, by reason of which damages were…

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.