Dixon v. The Surrey

(after stating the facts as above.") The additional evidence introduced in this court clearly shows that the fruit was discharged, not on Monday, January 26th, as the learned district judge assumed, but on Saturday, the 24th. It is also clear from the testimony that it -was not until well into the afternoon on Monday that the weather became such as to expose the goods to destruction from frost; and that, if removed any time before 4 p. m. of that day, they would have been found uninjured. I am unable, therefore, to concur in the conclusion that the goods were landed at an improper place or time, nor so as negligently to expose them to obvious peril of destruction. The decree of the district court is reversed, and judgment ordered for the ship on both original and cross libel, with costs of both courts.