International Harvest vs. Hamburg American, 42 Phil 845, G.R. No. 11515, July
29, 1918
Subject: Transportation Law
FACTS
In 1914, the International Harvester Company
in Russia (plaintiff) delivered a consignment of agricultural machinery consisting of 852
boxes, crates, and parcels to the Hamburg-American Line (defendant) in
Baltimore for transportation to Vladivostock, Russia. The bill of lading
stipulated that the goods would be forwarded from Hamburg to Vladivostock at
the ship's expense but at the owner's risk. Due to the outbreak of war in
Europe, the cargo was transferred to the Suevia, a German vessel, which sought
refuge in Manila. The plaintiff demanded the cargo's forwarding to
Vladivostock, but the defendant insisted on subjecting the cargo to liability
for general average expenses incurred during the Suevia's stay in Manila. The
plaintiff refused, demanding immediate delivery. The defendant offered delivery
on the condition of a 20% deposit for general average costs.
IHCR then instituted the present action in the Court of
First Instance of the city of Manila, seeking to recover the possession of
the cargo and damages for breach of contract and unlawful detention. The court
ruled in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing its right to possession and
awarding damages for the expenses incurred in forwarding the goods to
Vladivostock. The defendant appealed this judgment.
ISSUE
Whether or not the cargo belonging to IHCR is liable to be
made to contribute, by way of general average, to the costs and expenses
incurred by reason of the internment of the Suevia in the port
of Manila
RULING
No, the cargo in question is not liable to a general average.
Under the law, when a ship shall have entered a port
of refuge in consequence of accident, sacrifice, or other extraordinary
circumstance which renders that necessary for the common safety, the expense of
entering such port shall be admitted as general average.
In this case, it is not claimed that this agricultural
machinery was contraband of war; and being neutral goods, it was not liable to
forfeiture in the event of capture by the enemies of the ship's flag. It
follows that when the master of the Suevia decided to take
refuge in the port of Manila, he acted exclusively with a view to the
protection of his vessel. There was no common danger to the
ship and cargo; and therefore, it was not a case for a general average.
Moreover, HAL is liable for the expenses incurred by IHCR in contracting a
different shipper. By the terms of the contract of affreightment HAL was bound
to forward the cargo to Vladivostock at the steamer’s expense, not necessarily
by a steamer belonging to HAL.
No comments:
Post a Comment