Page 34 - Insurance Times May 2024

“William A. Higgins & Co. vs. Anglo-Algerian S.S. Co.” is a taken in fine weather, and the ship had no trouble till she
case that was heard in the United States District Court, passed Gibraltar.
Southern District of New York on June 30, 1915. The case
was a libel in person and by the assignee of a bill of lading In the Atlantic she experienced unusually heavy weather
for damage done to part of a cargo of dates shipped on even for December, and for some days rolled heavily and
board the steamship Armiston from Bussorah, Iraq for New took on board large sea; but no hatches were broken open
York,USA in November, 1911. and there was no evidence of damage to the cargo. The
weather was very cold, and when the hatches were opened
The steamship Armiston (3502 GRT) with a port of registry in New York, it transpired that the holds had sweat, but the
of Swansea, UK, from Bussorah, Iraq, was supposed to set sweat did not appear to be enough to cause the damage to
sail for New York during the first days of November, 1911. the dates, although some cargo was damaged in each of
As the steamer lay in the Bussorah Roads, the dates were the holds except No. 3.
brought alongside in lighters (flat-bottomed barges for
transporting goods through rivers and canals, where large The case of Higgins v. Anglo-Algerian S. S. Co., Ltd. (D. C.)
vessels cannot get through), wrapped in oil paper and 242 F. 568, came up and was tried by Judge Learned Hand.
packed in wooden cases made of three-eighths inch boards. The bill of lading provided for delivery at New York "unto order
of his or their assigns," and recited the shipment of the goods
While the loading was going on, heavy tropical rains fell on "apparently in good order and condition." The shippers had
Bussorah for several nights, drenching the lighters and given letters of indemnity, and while Judge Hand condemned
wetting some of the dates so much that the master refused the practice as a fraud on the indorse of the bill of lading, he
to take them and sent the lighters back. Some 25,000 cases, dismissed the libel, holding that the doctrine of estoppel laid
nevertheless, were shipped among which were the 3,000 down by the English cases in the lower courts should not be
afterwards sold to the libelant. When they came over the followed because he considered that some of the speeches
side, the mate gave receipts, and in every case noted upon by the Law Lords in Crawford v. Allan Line, [1912] App. Cas.
the receipt that the cases were stained by their own 130, showed a different opinion, and that they had put the
contents or were discoloured, or the equivalent. decision of the case on its peculiar facts.

When the loading was complete, the ship's agent, at the As stated by Judge Learned Hand, District Judge (after
request of the shippers, gave them a 'clean' bill of lading, stating the facts as above).
which read, 'Apparently in good order and condition. ' In
the fine printed portion of the bill of lading, however, there “In spite of the very reasonable scepticism with which courts
appeared this clause: 'Mate's receipts to be conclusive regard the proof of a ship's crew in such cases as this, there is
evidence of the quantity of and condition in which goods are no just reason to disregard their testimony, which stands quite
received by this company from river steamers and craft. ' unimpeached, and which is not contradicted by any inferences
necessarily to be made from the evidence touching the dates
To procure this 'clean' bill, the shippers gave to the ship's before they came aboard. Whether they got wet in the lighters
agents at Bussorah a contract of indemnity holding them while alongside, or whether they were wet before the lighters
harmless for all consequences arising therefrom. When the got them, does not appear; but that they were damaged is
dates arrived in New York, they were placed upon the pier, certainly the case, and that they were damaged by the rain is
and it was there found that out of 3,000 cases about 2,000 certainly favoured by all the probabilities.
had been damaged. Of these 2,000 the casings of 440
were stripped, and it was finally ascertained that some water Upon the issue of whether they were wet by salt water I find
damage had happened to about 500 in all; but whether the against the libelant; that is, if they were wet by salt water, I
damage was from salt or fresh water is in dispute. More than think it was not on the ship. The only reason to suspect salt
1,000 of the cases were removed by the libelant without water is that examiner Kemp found a salt reaction by nitrate
notice of damage, the bill of lading containing a provision that of silver, but a trace would be enough for that, and salt may
such removal should be a waiver of all claims. grow in the dates, or it may get on them in the lighters. All
the other witnesses say that the damage was not from salt
The Master, Carpenter, and the Mate of the Armiston were water, and Kemp was not very certain upon cross-
examined, and testified without contradiction that the examination. Therefore, I find that the dates were not injured
hatches were closed during the heavy rains at Bussorah, and by sea water while on the ship.”
that they had examined the holds and found them clean and
dry before the loading began. At Muscat more cargo was “The only other possible water damage which could have

The Insurance Times May 2024 31