Krauss Bros. Lumber v. Dimon Steamship Corp.
54 S. Ct. 105, 1933 U.S. LEXIS 947, 290 U.S. 117 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A shipper has a right to a maritime lien against a vessel for freight charges overpaid by mistake. Such an overpayment constitutes a breach of an essential term of the contract of affreightment, for which the vessel itself is liable once the 'union of ship and cargo' is established.
Facts:
- Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. (Krauss) entered into a contract with Dimon Steamship Corporation (Dimon) to transport lumber on the steamship 'Pacific Cedar' from Pacific Coast ports to Philadelphia and New York.
- The contract stipulated a freight rate of $10.00 per thousand feet.
- A clause in the contract provided that if a 'regular intercoastal carrier' moved similar cargo at a lower rate, that lower rate would apply to Krauss's shipment.
- In January 1930, another carrier transported a similar cargo at a rate of $8.50 per thousand feet, triggering the contract clause.
- Upon the 'Pacific Cedar's' arrival at its destination, and while the cargo was being discharged, Dimon demanded and Krauss paid freight at the higher $10.00 rate.
- Krauss made the payment without knowledge at the time that the lower rate of $8.50 was the controlling rate under the contract, resulting in an overpayment.
Procedural Posture:
- Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. filed a libel in admiralty in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking to recover the overpayment and establish a lien on the ship 'Pacific Cedar' (a claim 'in rem').
- The District Court, upon exceptions, dismissed the libel for lack of admiralty jurisdiction.
- Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the 'in rem' claim against the vessel but reversed the dismissal of the 'in personam' claim against the shipowner, Dimon Steamship Corp.
- Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. (the libellant) alone petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision denying the lien against the vessel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a shipper have a right to a maritime lien on a vessel for an overpayment of freight charges that was made by mistake, where the overpayment constitutes a breach of the contract of affreightment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stone
Yes. A shipper is entitled to a lien on the vessel for overpaid freight, as the right to the lien arises from the breach of the contract of affreightment. The court's reasoning is that the undertaking to charge the agreed freight and no more is an inseparable and essential incident to every contract of affreightment. Once the 'union of ship and cargo' occurs (i.e., the cargo is loaded), the vessel itself becomes hypothecated to secure the performance of the contract. A breach of the freight term, whether by mistake, fraud, or duress, is a breach of the maritime contract itself, giving rise to a lien. The court rejected the argument that this was merely a common law claim for money had and received, stating that admiralty is concerned with the substance of the action—the violation of a maritime contract—not its form.
Dissenting - Justices McReynolds, Sutherland, Butler, and Roberts
No. A maritime lien should not be extended to cover a mistaken overpayment of freight. The dissent's reasoning is that secret liens are not favored in maritime law and should be strictly construed ('stricti juris'). They should not be extended by construction, analogy, or inference to new circumstances, especially where there is ground for serious doubt about their application. This case represented an improper extension of such secret liens.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of maritime liens in favor of cargo, extending them beyond claims for physical loss or damage. It establishes that a vessel can be held liable in rem for breaches of purely financial terms of the contract of affreightment, such as charging the correct rate. By treating a mistaken overpayment as a breach that gives rise to a lien, the Court reinforced the principle that the vessel itself acts as security for the full and proper performance of the entire shipping contract. This strengthens the position of shippers by providing a powerful remedy directly against the vessel, which is often more effective than a personal suit against a potentially distant or financially unstable shipowner.
