Rice Growers Ass'n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Frode

Good Law
176 F.2d 401·1949 A.M.C. 1761·1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 24, 1949No. 12074California2,222 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Denman, J.

This is an admiralty proceeding m limitation of liability in which the Rice Growers Association, hereinafter called Growers appeals from an interlocutory decree determining the value for limitation of appellant Frode’s steamer Frej, burned while carrying Growers’ 5060 tons of rice, shipped on bills of lading at San Francisco on a voyage to Havana, Cuba, ■ via Panama.

Both parties agree that the valuation of the vessel in the fund for limitation is that at the termination of the voyage. They agree that the voyage continued until some later date after June 6, 1947, when Growers libeled the Frej for damages to the rice in excess of the Frej’s value at that time.

Growers contends that the court erred in holding the voyage of the Frej terminat *403 ed on June 19, 1947, when Frode gave notice of the abandonment of the voyage and refused to carry the cargo forward and in determining that her then value of $117,-000 is the ship’s item in the fund for limitation. It claims that the notice of abandonment is invalid for reasons later considered and that the voyage was not terminated until the rice in fact was delivered by Frode to its consignees in Havana, at which time the Frej’s value is…

Concurring Opinion

Pope, J.

(concurring).

I concur in the opinion of Judge Denman, but I think something further should be said. Had the vessel not proceeded to Havana the appellant would have been in no position to contend that the voyage terminated there. It reached Havana only because Frode was induced to have it pro-

ceed there by the stipulation that “The carrying on of the cargo and/or this agreement shall in no way prejudice any right or rights which either party now has and shall not affect the present status quo of the purported abandonment of the voyage at San Francisco, California.” In making the claim which Rice Growers now does, it is proceeding contrary to its own agree *406 ment and attempting to take advantage of circumstances which, it stipulated should have no effect upon the rights of the parties.

Since I know of no reason why parties in this situation are prohibited from making such a' stipulation, I think that Rice Growers is barred by its own agreement from urging that the arrival at Havana constituted the end of the voyage. .

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.