Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
The Ship Howard v. Wissman
Citations: 59 U.S. 231; 15 L. Ed. 363; 18 How. 231; 1855 U.S. LEXIS 690
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; February 18, 1856; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
An appeal was made from the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the ship Howard, where claimants C. William F. Schmidt and George Belcher contested a decree favoring libellant Frederick Wissman. The case involved a libel action against a foreign vessel for the loss of 5,004 bushels of potatoes shipped from Hamburg, which were claimed to have been damaged due to delays and negligence by the vessel's master and owner during transit to New York. The respondents contended that the potatoes were already in poor condition upon loading, having been damp and improperly stowed. The district court issued an interlocutory decree allowing the libellant to recover the value of the potatoes unless the claimants could prove they were not in sound condition at the time of loading or that their loss resulted from inherent defects rather than transportation delays. A commissioner determined that the potatoes were sound when loaded but were ultimately lost due to the lengthy voyage of 109 days. The district court adopted the commissioner's findings and set the value of the potatoes at approximately $2,256.77. The claimants appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the lower court's decree. Evidence indicated that the potatoes were wet when loaded, and testimonies from various witnesses, including the stevedore and ship's pilot, confirmed the potatoes began to spoil during the voyage, with noticeable odor issues emerging shortly after departure. Witness testimonies confirm that the potato crop of 1849 across Germany was severely blighted and generally unsuitable for shipment due to disease. Heidpriein, a witness for the libellants, reported selling 7.2 million pounds of potatoes that year, which he found unsound and unsuitable for long voyages from Hamburg to New York. He noted that no cargo arrived in good condition after being transported for several days. He also mentioned that Mr. Rawalle sought to purchase potatoes from him, but he refused due to their poor condition, ultimately leading Rawalle to buy from Lehman and Cleve. Other witnesses, including Baalmann and Wulff, confirmed the unsound condition of the potatoes, with Baalmann stating that potatoes shipped to England were worthless upon arrival. The master and mate of The Howard reported that potatoes from the same source were diseased and unfit for cooking. Arianson, the master of the bark Miles, noted that potatoes sent to The Howard also rotted during the voyage. The district court imposed the burden on the owner to prove the soundness of the potatoes, which was accomplished through the testimonies indicating the cargo's unsuitability for bulk shipment. Rawalle, while claiming the potatoes were in good order when loaded, lacked the extensive experience of other witnesses who doubted the cargo's ability to arrive uninjured. Notably, the loss of the cargo on The Miles, which was loaded similarly and at the same time, further undermined the libellant's claims. Ultimately, the court concluded that the libellant's case lacked merit, resulting in the reversal of the circuit court's decree and the dismissal of the libel with costs. Mr. Justice Daniel concurs with the opinion that the libellant's claim lacks merit, noting that the loss of the cargo was unavoidable due to its nature, and no amount of diligence could have preserved it for delivery. He asserts that the case, fundamentally a contract between the property owner and the vessel's master for transporting potatoes from Hamburg to New York, should not qualify as a maritime contract. The contract was initiated and meant to be executed on land, involving a transportation agreement for hire, rather than a maritime transaction. He emphasizes that actions regarding this contract could have been appropriately pursued in a court of law based on traditional practices, which would have provided a more direct and efficient resolution than the current proceedings, which are less familiar and more expensive. Consequently, he argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and therefore should have dismissed the libel, recommending that the current court also dismiss it for the same reason.