The document summarizes a court case between two shipping companies regarding a cargo shipment from Saigon to Europe. A German-owned ship carrying cargo belonging to a French company fled Saigon due to rumors of war between Germany and France. The ship sought refuge in Manila but was unable to deliver the cargo. The court had to determine if the ship's master was justified in fleeing to Manila, making it unable to deliver the cargo. The court ultimately found that while the master's actions were justified for the safety of the ship, the shipowners were still liable for damages to the cargo owners for non-delivery, and had to pay the proceeds from selling the perishable cargo.
The document summarizes a court case between two shipping companies regarding a cargo shipment from Saigon to Europe. A German-owned ship carrying cargo belonging to a French company fled Saigon due to rumors of war between Germany and France. The ship sought refuge in Manila but was unable to deliver the cargo. The court had to determine if the ship's master was justified in fleeing to Manila, making it unable to deliver the cargo. The court ultimately found that while the master's actions were justified for the safety of the ship, the shipowners were still liable for damages to the cargo owners for non-delivery, and had to pay the proceeds from selling the perishable cargo.
The document summarizes a court case between two shipping companies regarding a cargo shipment from Saigon to Europe. A German-owned ship carrying cargo belonging to a French company fled Saigon due to rumors of war between Germany and France. The ship sought refuge in Manila but was unable to deliver the cargo. The court had to determine if the ship's master was justified in fleeing to Manila, making it unable to deliver the cargo. The court ultimately found that while the master's actions were justified for the safety of the ship, the shipowners were still liable for damages to the cargo owners for non-delivery, and had to pay the proceeds from selling the perishable cargo.
The document summarizes a court case between two shipping companies regarding a cargo shipment from Saigon to Europe. A German-owned ship carrying cargo belonging to a French company fled Saigon due to rumors of war between Germany and France. The ship sought refuge in Manila but was unable to deliver the cargo. The court had to determine if the ship's master was justified in fleeing to Manila, making it unable to deliver the cargo. The court ultimately found that while the master's actions were justified for the safety of the ship, the shipowners were still liable for damages to the cargo owners for non-delivery, and had to pay the proceeds from selling the perishable cargo.
COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE ET DE NAVIGATION D'EXTREME ORIENT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE HAMBURG AMERIKA PACKETFACHT ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT, defendant-appellant. FACTS: 1. COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE ET DE NAVIGATION D'EXTREME ORIENT (Compagnie) is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of France, with its principal office in Paris and a branch office in Saigon, Vietnam. THE HAMBURG AMERIKA PACKETFACHT ACTIEN GESELLSCHAFT(Hamburg) is a corporation organized under the laws of Germany with its principal office in Hamburg and represented in Manila by Behn, Meyer & Company (Limited), a corporation. 2. HAMBURG owned a steamship named SAMBIA, which proceeded to the port of Saigon and on board was the cargo belonging to COMPAGNIE. There were rumors of impending war between Germany and France and other nations of Europe. The master of the steamship was told to take refuge at a neutral port (because Saigon was a French port). 3. COMPAGNIE asked for compulsory detention of its vessel to prevent its property from leaving Saigon. However, the Governor of Saigon refused to issue an order because he had not been officially notified of the declaration of the war. 4. The steamship sailed from Saigon, and was bound for Manila, because it was issued a bill of health by the US consul in Saigon. The steamship stayed continuously in Manila and where it contends it will be compelled to stay until the war ceases. No attempt was made on the part of the defendants to transfer and deliver the cargo to the destinations as stipulated in the charter party. 5. BEHN, MEYER and COMPANY (agent of HAMBURG in Manila) offered to purchase the cargo from COMPAGNIE, but the latter never received the cable messages so they never answered. When a survey was done on the ship, it was found that the cargo was infested with beetles, so BEHN asked for court authority to sell the cargo and the balance to be dumped at sea. The proceeds of the sale were deposited in the court, waiting for orders as to what to do with it. 6. BEHN wrote COMPAGNIE again informing the latter of the disposition which it made upon the cargo. COMPAGNIE answered that it was still waiting for orders as to what to do. COMPAGNIE wanted all the proceeds of the sale to be given to them (damages, for the defendants failure to deliver the cargo to the destinations Dunkirk and Hamburg), while defendants contended that they have a lien on the proceeds of the sale (amount due to them because of the upkeep and maintenance of the ship crew and for commissions for the sale of the cargo). 6. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendants made the following assignments on appeal (that the court had no jurisdiction, that the fear of capture was not force majeure, that the court erred in concluding that defendant is liable for damages for non-delivery of cargo, and the value of the award of damages). On appeal, the plaintiffs also contended that the court erred in not giving the full value of damages
ISSUE: WONthe master of the steamship was justified in taking refuge in Manila (therefore being the cause of the non-delivery of the cargo belonging to the plaintiffs) COMPAGNIE contends that the master should have in mind the accepted principles of public international law, the established practice of nations, and the express terms of the Sixth Hague Convention (1907). The master should have confidently relied upon the French authorities at Saigon to permit him to sail to his port of destination under a laissez-passer or safe-conduct, which would have secured both the vessel and her cargo from all danger of capture by any of the belligerents. The SHIPOWNER contends that the master was justified in declining to leave his vessel in a situation in which it would be exposed to danger of seizure by the French authorities, should they refuse to be bound by the alleged rule of international law. HELD:A shipmaster must be allowed a reasonable time in which to decide what course he will adopt as to the disposition of his cargo, after entering a port of refuge; and though he must act promptly thereafter, when the cargo is a perishable one, neither he nor the shipowner is responsible for loss or damage suffered by the cargo as a result of its detention aboard the vessel during such time as may reasonably necessary to come to a decision in this regard. Under the circumstances set out in the opinion, the master of the Sambia proceeded with all reasonable dispatch and did all that could be required of a prudent man to protect the interests of the owner of the cargo aboard is vessel; so that any losses which resulted from the detention of the cargo aboard the Sambia must be attributed to the act of the Enemy of the King which compelled the Sambia to flee to a port of refuge, and made necessary the retention of the cargo aboard the vessel at anchor under a tropical sun and without proper ventilation until it could be ascertained that the interests of the absent owner would be consulted by the sale of this perishable cargo in the local market. In fleeing from the port of Saigon, and taking refuge in Manila Bay the master of the Sambia was not acting for the common safety of the vessel and her cargo. The French cargo was absolutely secure from danger of seizure or confiscation so long as it remained in the port in Saigon, and the flight of the vessel was a measure of precaution adopted solely and exclusively for the preservation of the vessel from the danger of seizure or capture. Dispositive: So much of the judgment as provides for the delivery to the plaintiff of the net proceeds of the sale of the cargo (P128,99999977.71) affirmed; but so much thereof as allowed damages for a breach of the charter party (P60,841.32) reversed.