About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Charles Richardson and others, Claimants of the Barque Tangier, Appellants, v. David Goddard and others U.S. 28 (1860)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0173 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. Richardson et al. v. Goddard et al. We affirm the decree of the Circuit Court in this case, and shall remand it there for execution. CHARLES RICHARDSON AND OTHERS, CLAImANTS OF THE BARQuE TANGIER, APPELLANTS, V. DAVID GODDARD AND OTHERS. The general rules which regulate the delivery of goods by a carrier, by land or water, explained. Where the master of a vessel delivered the goods at the ptace chosen by the con- signees, at which they agreed to receive them, and did receive a large portion of them after full and fair notice, and the master deposited them for the con- signees in proper order and condition at mid-day, on a week day, in good weather, it was a good delivery according to the general usages of the com- mercial and maritime law. The fact that the Governor of the State had appointed a day as a general fast day, did not abrogate the right of the master to continue the delivery of the goods on that day. Holiday is a privilege, not a duty. There was neither a law of the State forbidding the transaction of business on- that day nor a general usage engrafted into the commercial and maritime law, forbidding the unlading of vessels on the day set apart for a church festi- val, fast, or holiday; nor a special custom in the port, forbidding a carrier from unloading his vessel on such a day. In the absence of these legal restrictions, the master had a right to continue the delivery of the goods on the wharf on a fast day. THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States. for the district of Massachusetts. It was the case of a libel filed in the District Court by God- dard & Pritchard, against the barque Tangier, f6r the non-de- livery of 6ertain bales of cotton shipped at the port of Apa- lachicola. The barque arrived'at Boston, and the cotton was lost tnder the circumstances mentioned in the opinion of the court. The District Court dismissed the libel, but this decree was reversed by the Circuit Court, and the vessel ordered-to pay the amount reported by the assessor. The claimants of the vessel appealed to this court. The case was argued by Mr. Shepley for the appellants, and by Mr. Gushing for the appellees.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most