U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1913

The Sao Paulo

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided June 14, 1913

207 F. 51; 124 C.C.A. 611; 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1601

Counsel

Harrington, Bigham & Englar, of New York City (Howard S. Harrington, of New York City, of counsel, and T. Catesby Jones and Kenneth M. Gibson, both of New York City, on the brief), for appellants., Haight, Sandford & Smith, of New York City (Charles S. Haight. John W. Griffin, and J. Dexter Crowell, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Pan-American Hide Co. v. Nippon Yusen (Kabushiki) Kaisha (District Court, S.D. New York 1921)
The Arpillao (District Court, S.D. New York 1917)
United States v. Central Gulf Steamship Corporation (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The damage was undoubtedly by “deterioration,” which is among the exceptions in the bills of lading, and concededly the burden rests on the cargo owner to show that the ship’s negligence caused or promoted such deterioration. The case is a very close one but on the whole we concur with Judge Hand’s conclusion for the reasons he has expressed that such negligence is not established by a preponderance of proof.

Decrees affirmed, with costs of this appeal.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.