The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 23
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The bills of lading making equivalent provision with the charter for
the owner's security, the cesser clause became fully operative in favor
of the charterer as to all demurrage incurred after the signing of the
bills of lading.
 In the adjustment between the charterer and the master at
Pensacola, before the ship sailed, through a mistake in rate of ex-
change, the master for the owners received $677.50 less than the own-
ers were entitled to. The District Judge allowed this to appellant as
an offset, but denied the appellant interest on it from the time of
settlement. The District Judge allowed the appellees interest on the
amount of freight money held back by the owners. "The allowance of
interest by way of damages in cases of collision, and other cases of
pure damage, * * * is in the discretion of the court." The Scot-
land, 118 U. S. 507, 6 Sup. Ct. 1174, 30 L. Ed. 153. The claim of
appellant for the recovery of the $677.50 was not in the nature of a
recovery of pure damage. It was money retained by mutual mistake by
the charterer, and the remedy for its recovery would be in the nature
of an action for money had and received by the charterer for the use
-of the owners, which is in its nature a contractual liability. In view of
this fact, we think that the amount should bear interest from the time
it should have been paid. As the District Court allowed interest in
favor of the appellees on the principal claim, we think interest should
have been allowed the appellant on the offset, from the date of settle-
ment in Pensacola to the date of final decree.
In this respect, the decree of the District Court is modified, and, as
so modified, is affirmed.
On Application to Modify Order.
PER CURIAM. This cause coming on to be heard upon the appli-
cation of the appellee to modify the former order of this court, modi-
fying and affirming the decree of the District Court, and adjudging
that appellant have and recover of the appellee the cost of the appeal,
by disallowing the appellant any costs of appeal, and it being made
to appear that the appellant and cross-libelant recovered upon his
appeal less than the sum or value of $300, exclusive of costs:
It is ordered that the former order of this court be modified, and
that the decree of the District Court, as modified by said former order
of this court, be affirmed, but that the appellant and cross-libelant re-
cover no costs, but is adjudged to pay the costs of appeal, for which
,execution may issue.
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38821/m1/38/: accessed June 26, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.