Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    H.E Heacock Company vs. Macondray and Company

    Uploaded by

    Nypho Pareño
    The plaintiff shipped 12 clocks from New York to Manila via steamship. When the shipment arrived, the clocks were not delivered to the plaintiff. The bill of lading contained clauses limiting the carrier's liability. The lower court found for the plaintiff based on clause 9, but both parties appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that clauses 1 and 9 were valid and not contrary to public policy or law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, but made no finding on costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    H.E Heacock Company vs. Macondray and Company

    Uploaded by

    Nypho Pareño
    75 views2 pages
    The plaintiff shipped 12 clocks from New York to Manila via steamship. When the shipment arrived, the clocks were not delivered to the plaintiff. The bill of lading contained clauses limiting the carrier's liability. The lower court found for the plaintiff based on clause 9, but both parties appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that clauses 1 and 9 were valid and not contrary to public policy or law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, but made no finding on costs.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff shipped 12 clocks from New York to Manila via steamship. When the shipment arrived, the clocks were not delivered to the plaintiff. The bill of lading contained clauses limiting the carrier's liability. The lower court found for the plaintiff based on clause 9, but both parties appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that clauses 1 and 9 were valid and not contrary to public policy or law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, but made no finding on costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    75 views2 pages

    H.E Heacock Company vs. Macondray and Company

    Uploaded by

    Nypho Pareño
    The plaintiff shipped 12 clocks from New York to Manila via steamship. When the shipment arrived, the clocks were not delivered to the plaintiff. The bill of lading contained clauses limiting the carrier's liability. The lower court found for the plaintiff based on clause 9, but both parties appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that clauses 1 and 9 were valid and not contrary to public policy or law. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, but made no finding on costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-16598             October 3, 1921

    H. E. HEACOCK COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant,
    vs.
    MACONDRAY & COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellant.

    Fisher & DeWitt for plaintiff-appellant.


    Wolfson, Wolfson & Schwarzkopf for defendant-appellant.

    JOHNSON, J.:

    FACTS:

    The plaintiff caused to be delivered on board of steamship Bolton Castle from New York to Manila.
    The things to be delivered were four (4) cases of merchandise and one (1) that contained twelve
    (12) 8-day Edmond clocks.

    The said steamship arrived in Manila, but the packages were not delivered to the plaintiff even
    though the demand to deliver was already made.

    The invoice value of the twelve 8-day Edmond clocks in the city of New York was P22 and the
    market value of the same in the City of Manila at the time when they should have been delivered to
    the plaintiff was P420.

    The bill of lading issued and delivered to the plaintiff by the master of the said steamship Bolton
    Castle contained, among others, the following clauses:

    1. It is mutually agreed that the value of the goods receipted for above does not
    exceed $500 per freight ton, or, in proportion for any part of a ton, unless the value
    be expressly stated herein and ad valorem freight paid thereon.

    9. Also, that in the event of claims for short delivery of, or damage to, cargo being
    made, the carrier shall not be liable for more than the net invoice price plus freight
    and insurance less all charges saved, and any loss or damage for which the carrier
    may be liable shall be adjusted pro rata on the said basis.

    The case containing the aforesaid twelve 8-day Edmond clocks measured 3 cubic feet, and the
    freight ton value thereof was $1,480, U. S. currency.

    No greater value than $500, U. S. currency, per freight ton was declared by the plaintiff on the
    aforesaid clocks, and no ad valorem freight was paid thereon.

    The defendant tendered to the plaintiff P76.36, the proportionate freight ton value of the aforesaid
    twelve 8-day Edmond clocks, in payment of plaintiff's claim, which tender plaintiff rejected.

    The lower court rendered judgment in view of the clause 9 of the bill of lading favoring the plaintiff
    and against the defendant for the sum of P226.02. The said amount was the invoice value of the
    clocks plus the freight and insurance, with legal interest.
    Both parties appealed to this court.

    The plaintiff-appellant insists that it is entitled to recover from the defendant the market value of the
    clocks in question, to wit: the sum of P420.

    The defendant-appellant, on the other hand, contends that, in accordance with clause 1 of the bill of
    lading, the plaintiff is entitled to recover only the sum of P76.36, the proportionate freight ton value of
    the said clocks.

    The claim of the plaintiff is based upon the argument that the two clause in the bill of lading above
    quoted, limiting the liability of the carrier, are contrary to public order and, therefore, null and void.

    The defendant, on the other hand, contends that both of said clauses are valid, and the clause 1
    should have been applied by the lower court instead of clause 9.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the clauses of the bill of lading are null and void as they are contrary to law?

    RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

    The clauses (1 and 9) of the bill of lading here in question are not contrary to public order. Article
    1255 of the Civil Code provides that "the contracting parties may establish any agreements, terms
    and conditions they may deem advisable, provided they are not contrary to law, morals or public
    order." Said clauses of the bill of lading are, therefore, valid and binding upon the parties thereto.

    FALLO:

    It follows from all of the foregoing that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, without any
    finding as to costs. So ordered.

    You might also like