# Skibsaktieselskapet Siljestad v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · March 2, 1960 · 180 F. Supp. 957

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8592301

## Case

- **Full name:** SKIBSAKTIESELSKAPET SILJESTAD v. THE UNITED STATES SKIBSAKTIESELSKAPET MANDEVILLE v. THE UNITED STATES DAMPSKIBSINTERESSENTSKABET GARONNE v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** March 2, 1960
- **Citations:** 180 F. Supp. 957; 149 Ct. Cl. 141; 1960 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 72
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Whitaker
- **Judges:** Jones, Laramore, Madden, Whitaker
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8592301

## Opinion text

Whitaker, Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the opinion of the majority. This suit is based on a claim for pier demurrage, which is independent of the maritime contracts under which the carriers delivered the goods to New York.
Under the maritime contracts and the lawfully effective tariffs, the carriers allowed the United States, as consignee, a reasonable period of “free time” after the goods were discharged upon the pier, during which time the United States could take possession and remove the goods without incurring any additional charges. This so-called “free time” was an obligation of the maritime contracts since it is in effect an incident of the carriers’ duty to make delivery. There is no doubt that a breach of contract which occurs during the period of “free time” is to be remedied solely by a court of admiralty. North American Smelting Co. v. Moller SS. Co., 103 F. Supp. 447 .
But once the carrier has allowed the consignee a reasonable time to accept delivery, its obligation under the mari *145 time contract has been discharged and the obligation of the consignee to pay demurrage for further time is not an incident of that contract. The carriers’ duty was to provide a time during which the consignee could accept the goods; this duty did not give rise to a promise to store the goods with or without charge until the consignee saw fit to accept delivery.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8592301. Public record. Not legal advice.