Oxford Paper Co. v. The Nidarholm, 282 U.S. 681 (1931)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 282 U.S. 675, click here.

Oxford Paper Co. v. The Nidarholm

No. 58

Argued January 20, 1931
Decided February 24, 1931
282 U.S. 681

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. The Court need not consider objections to the decree below raised by a respondent who did not ask certiorari. P. 684.

2. Under a time charter party in the usual "government form," which placed at the charterer’s disposal "the whole reach of the vessel’s holds, decks and usual places of loading," and provided that "charterers . . . load, stow, and trim the cargo at their expense under the supervision of the captain," the charterer is responsible at least to the extent of the one-half of the damage decreed below, for a loss of cargo caused, a half hour after the departure of the ship and while it was still in smooth waters, by the collapse of defective stanchions, which had been erected by the charterer for its own convenience to facilitate stowing the deck load, and this whether or not the topheaviness of the vessel, caused by faulty stowage, was a contributory cause. Olsen v. United States Shipping Co., 213 Fed. 18, distinguished. P. 684.

3. The owner’s duty to the charterer to provide a seaworthy and cargo-worthy ship at the beginning of the voyage does not extend to the furnishing of safe cribbing; the warranty applies only to the ship and to such equipment as is called for by the charter party. P. 685.

4. The master, under his duty of supervision of cargo stowage, is not bound to prevent the charterer from stowing the deck load in such manner as to expose it to dangers ordinarily incident to the transportation of deck loads and not peculiarly within his prevision. P. 685.

34 F.2d 442, 36 F.2d 227, affirmed.

Certiorari, 281 U.S. 712, to review a judgment which reversed a judgment of the district court, 26 F.2d 92, in favor of the petitioner in an admiralty suit in rem to recover damages for loss of part of a cargo.

.