Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Administrative
THE NIDARHOLM. NIDAROS v. OXFORD PAPER CO.
36 F.2d 227·United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·1929
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
THE NIDARHOLM. NIDAROS v. OXFORD PAPER CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
December 11, 1929.
No. 2335.
For former opinion, see 34 F.(2d) 442.
Robert E. Goodwin, of Boston, Mass. (Robert R. Duncan and Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Nathan W. Thompson, of Portland, Me. (Woodman, Whitehouse, Skelton & Thompson, of Portland, Me., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, Circuit Judge, and MORTON and MORRIS, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The duty of the master of the steamer with respect to dangerous loading or stowage is fully recognized in our opinion holding her liable.
None of the decisions referred to by the petitioner on the question of its own fault covers or even closely resembles this case, which appears to be rather unusual in its facts. The installation of the cribbing was not a supplying of equipment or fittings necessary to secure cargo coming within the reasonable capacity afforded by the ship’s structure, but an enlargement of her structural capacity for carrying goods beyond what she could otherwise naturally and reasonably take. This the ship was not required to provide in the absence of special agreement. As the installation in this case was made by the charterer, it was under the duty of exercising due care and skill that the containers were properly constructed; and it is not excused for its failure in those respects by the facts that the master did not objeet to the way in which the containers were built, and permitted the vessel to go to sea with them.
Petition denied.