ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES. 2 9 - Reports of Cases Relating to Maritime Law : containing

App.] Dampselskab Svendborg v. London, Midland, and Scottish Railway. [App.

th e o p tio n o f u s in g th e s h ip ’ s ta c k le o r shore crane w h e re p e rm is s ib le b y lo c a l re g u la tio n s ) s h a ll be a t consignees’ r is k a n d expense. T h e c o s t o f such a d d itio n a l w o r k s h a ll b e d e te rm in e d in accordance w it h a schedule o f a p p o rtio n m e n t t o be agreed fr o m tim e t o tim e b e tw e e n th e C h a m b e r o f S h ip p in g o f th e U n ite d K in g d o m a n d th e T im b e r T ra d e F e d e ra tio n o f th e U n ite d K in g d o m a t p o rts w h e re th e schedule a p p lie s .”

A t th is stage i t w as a p p a re n tly c o n te m p la te d t h a t th e fe d e ra tio n and th e c h a m b e r w o u ld be able t o agree fo r each p o r t th e a m o u n t t o be p a id b y the. consignees fo r w o r k done b y th e s h ip a fte r d e liv e r y as d e fin e d in th e clause w h e n th e s h ip Was w o r k in g “ in th e c u s to m a ry m a n n e r.”

A s appears fr o m th e agreed schedule o f a p p o rtio n m e n t th e tw o bodies, th e c h a m b e r a n d th e fe d e ra tio n , w e re ab le t o agree f o r a large n u m b e r o f p o rts , th e a m o u n t o f th e c on

signees’ p a y m e n t. B u t fo r som e reason n o t sta te d t o us i t was a g a in t h o u g h t necessary to a lte r th e fo r m o f c h a rte r, a n d a n e w a rra n g e d fo rm , th e one in q u e s tio n in th e p re s e n t case, k n o w n as th e B a ltw o o d C h a rte r 1926, was P roduced. T h e p o r t o f disch a rg e in th e p re se n t case w as th e w e ll-k n o w n G a rs to n D o c k , n e a r L iv e rp o o l, o w ne d b y th e L o n d o n , M id la n d , a n d S c o ttis h R a ilw a y . T h e c h a m b e r a n d th e fe d e ra tio n h a d n o t been ab le to , o r a t a n y ra te had n o t, agreed a n a p p o rtio n m e n t o f th e charges a t t h is p o r t.

A t G a rs to n th e o n ly po ssible m e th o d o f discharge is b y s h o rt cranes w o rk e d b y th e ra ilw a y c o m p a n y on t o wagons w it h in rea ch th e shore cranes. W h e re th e re are several consignees th e cargo is s o rte d b y th e r a ilw a y c o m p a n y fo r d e liv e ry t o th e m b y m a rk s a n d cum b ers a t a y a r d t o w h ic h th e w agons are ,r|oved a n d d e liv e r y ord ers are issued t o th e consignees a fte r t h is s o rtin g . Clause 15 o f th e B a ltw o o d C h a rte r m akes c e rta in a d d itio n s to clause 13 0f th e S c a n fin c h a rte r 1924. F ir s t 5, '" Id s tw o sentences a b o u t s h ip o w n e rs ’ lia b ilit y ,

■ i th e fir s t sentence as to li a b i lit y fo r th e w o r k c p to d e liv e ry o r discharge p ro v id e s t h a t th e 'a b ilit y is t o cease w h e n th e cargo is discha rged W ith in rea ch o f th e shore crane ta c k le , (fc) th e ast sentence as t o li a b i lit y f o r th e w o r k done y th e ship fo r w h ic h th e consignee is t o "pay, ta m e ly , w o r k done a fte r d is c h a rg in g w it h in ''each o f th e shore cra n e ta c k le p ro v id e s t h a t d e s h ip o w n e r is t o h a v e th e li a b i lit y o f a evedore, s u b je c t t o a spe cia l p r o v is io n as etore. S eco nd ly, as th e c h a m b e r a n d th e .ed e ra tio n L a v e n o w agreed a n a p p o rtio n m e n t sh ? a n y P ° r t s > i t adds a sentence t h a t th e cost a ll be a p p o rtio n e d u n d e r t h a t a p p o rtio n m e n t n ie h i t c o n te m p la te s s h a ll be fille d in to th e cnedule in clause 18. Clause 16 c o n ta in s a

° te in s m a ll p r i n t : “ I f th e p o r t o f discha rge .? n ,' t in c lu d e d in th e schedule o f a p p o rtio n m e n t,

® charges, i f a n y , u n d e r clause 15 s h a ll be Paid m a d d itio n t o th e fr e ig h t ab ove m e n tio n e d ,”

P 'o v id in g w h a t is t o h a p p e n i f th e schedule o f P p o rtio n m e n t does n o t c o n ta in th e p o r t o f 'scharge in th e c h a rte r, w h ic h is th e p re s e n t , se’ a n d says th e consignee is t o p a y th e a rges, i f a n y , u n d e r clause 15, t h a t is, th e

cost o f a n y w o r k done b y th e vessel b e y o n d d e liv e rin g cargo w it h in rea ch o f th e shore crane ta c k le . Clause 16 a t th e b e g in n in g speaks o f th e a p p o rtio n m e n t o f charges u n d e r clause 1 ; th e la s t sentence o f clause 1 reads t h a t a n y a d d itio n a l expense o f th e m ode o f d e liv e ry selected b y th e consignee o v e r th e cost o f d e liv e ry on t o th e q u a y s h a ll be p a id b y th e consignee. T h is h a r d ly seems t o be th e same as th e p ro v is io n s o f clause 15 t h a t th e consignee is t o p a y th e cost o f w o r k done b y th e ship a fte r d e liv e r y w it h in re a ch o f th e shore cranes.

B u t n e ith e r side b e fore us a tte m p te d a n y e x p la n a tio n o f th e m e a n in g o f clause 1 o n th is p o in t, o r based a n y a rg u m e n t o n i t , a n d I deal w it h th e m a tte r in th e w o rd s o f th e fo o t

n o te t o clause 16, as t o be d e te rm in e d b y th e w o rd s o f clause 15.

T h e d is p u te b e tw e e n th e tw o p a rtie s was th is : counsel fo r th e s h ip said, I ha ve de

liv e re d , a n d m y li a b i lit y ceases w h e n th e t im b e r ’ sw u n g on th e shore cranes is w ith in rea ch o f th e consignee in th e w a g o n , th o u g h i t is s t ill in th e a ir a n d tie d u p in th e s lin g . T h e consignee m u s t p a y th e cost o f m a n c e u v rin g i t in to a n d o n to th e flo o r o f th e w a g o n an d, counsel ad de d u n d e r pressure, th e cost o f relea sing th e s lin g . Pressed as t o th e cost o f th e cra n e m a n w h o lo w e re d th e s lin g fro m

“ w ith in re a ch ” t o th e flo o r o f th e w a go n, I t h in k counsel a d m itte d t h a t th is was s h ip ’ s w o r k in d e liv e rin g a n d t h a t th e consignee c o u ld n o t be c a lle d u p o n t o p a y fo r i t . Counsel fo r th e consignee said t h a t he was e n title d t o h a v e th e t im b e r d isch a rg e d in t o w agons, a n d t h a t th is w o r k w as n o t done t i l l th e t im b e r was in th e w a g o n , n o t m e re ly h a n g in g n e a r i t , a n d th e tim b e r w as released fro m th e s lin g w h ic h tie d th e pieces to g e th e r a n d a tta c h e d th e m to th e cran e. I m e n tio n , t o show t h a t I h a v e n o t o v e rlo o k e d i t , t h a t i t is n o t o r d in a r ily good d e liv e r y t o te n d e r goods o f t w o consignees c la im in g d iffe re n t m a rk s m ix e d u p to g e th e r a n d to le ave th e consignees t o s o rt th e m , b u t th e consignees seem t o ha ve acquiesced, as th e y do in L o n d o n , in th e fo r m o f d e liv e ry .

I n m y v ie w , th e fa lla c y o f th e a rg u m e n t fo r th e s h ip lie s in t h is : t h a t i t tu r n s th e phrase

“ d e liv e r y w it h in re a ch o f shore crane ta c k le ” in to “ d e liv e r y w it h in re a ch o f consignees,”

a n d argues t h a t th o u g h th e s h ip is b o u n d to d e liv e r in to w agons, i t does so i f i t b rin g s th e s lin g o f t im b e r h a n g in g o n a crane w it h in reach o f th e consignee s ta n d in g in a w a g o n , an d leaves th e consignee t o “ m anoeuvre ” th e t im b e r in t o th e w a g o n and release i t fr o m th e s lin g . These la tt e r o p e ra tio n s are, in m y o p in io n , p a r t o f th e w o r k o f d e liv e r y o r discharge in to w a gons w h ic h th e s h ip has u n d e rta k e n to d o , a n d th e w o rd s “ w it h in rea ch o f shore crane ta c k le ” are in s e rte d t o l i m i t th e area w it h in w h ic h th e s h ip can be re q u ire d to d e liv e r in to w agons. T h e re is n o t a case o f d e liv e r y a t s h ip ’ s r a il w h e re th e consignee ta k e s fr o m th e r a il th e cargo w h ic h th e s h ip b rin g s t o th e r a il, b o th p a rtie s p o s s ib ly h a v in g h o ld o f th e package a t th e sam e tim e . T h e s h ip has u n d e rta k e n t o d e liv e r b e y o n d th e s h ip ’ s r a i l,

App.] Dampselskab Svendborg V. London, Midland, and Scottish Railway.

[App. t h a t is in to w agons, p ro v id e d th e w agons are

w ith in th e rea ch o f th e shore crane ta c k le . S tow age o r s ta c k in g in th e w agons o r o n th e q u a y w h e re c u s to m a rily done b y th e s h ip is f o r expense o f th e consignee. I c a n n o t t h in k th e s h ip has d e liv e re d th e cargo in t o wagons w h e n i t is s t ill in th e a ir , o r has m ad e d e liv e ry o f goods w h ic h are s t ill fasten ed o r tie d t o th e ta c k le o f th e cran e th e s h ip is u sing .

I h a v e com e t o th is c o n clu sio n o n th e w o rd in g o f th e c h a rte r, b u t i t is c o n firm e d b y th e a p p o r

tio n m e n t w h ic h th e c h a m b e r a n d th e fe d e ra tio n h a v e agreed t o a t p o rts w h e re d is c h a rg in g in to wagons b y crane is c u s to m a ry . F o r in s ta n c e , a t th e S h ip Canal p o r t o f M an che ste r, discha rge in to w agons b y crane, w h e th e r s h ip ’ s o r shore, is c u s to m a ry , a n d i t is agreed t h a t th e s h ip p a ys “ fo r d ischa rge d ir e c t fro m s h ip t o w a go n alon gsid e a n d relea sing fro m s h ip ’ s ta c k le o r shore cran e.” A t th e H a rtle p o o ls th e cus

to m a r y m e th o d is discha rge in t o w agons, th e s h ip pa ys f o r discha rge in t o w agons b y shore crane a n d relea sing slings o n l y ; a n y w o r k done b e y o n d release o f s lin g p a y a b le b y c o n signees. A t a n u m b e r o f p o rts w h e re d e liv e ry b y shore crane in t o w agons is c u s to m a ry th e s h ip pa ys th e expense o f d e liv e r y a n d th e consignee n o th in g . E x a m p le s o f such p o rts are C a rd iff, G lasgow , Swansea, M ilfo r d H a v e n a n d I r v in e . T h e B e lfa s t a p p o rtio n m e n t fo r s h ip ’ s ta c k le m e n tio n e d t h a t th e s h ip m u s t release th e s lin g .

T h e ju d g e b e lo w expressed h is v ie w as t o th e p o in t w h e re d e liv e r y o r discharge, w h ic h I t h in k m ea n th e same th in g , te rm in a te d in th e fo llo w in g w o rd s : “ I t h in k i t p la in t h a t th e discha rge o r d e liv e r y w it h in rea ch o f shore crane in te n d e d b y th is clause is a d e liv e r y o r d ischa rge ove rsid e on t o th e q u a y o r in to c r a f t o r w agons as th e c u s to m o f th e p o r t dem ands, th e w o rd s ‘ w it h in re a ch o f shore crane lim it in g th e d is ta n c e fr o m th e s h ip ’ s side b e y o n d w h ic h th e s h ip o w n e r need n o t, in h is c a p a c ity o f s h ip o w n e r, tr a n s p o r t th e goods a n d w it h in w h ic h he is c a lle d u p o n t o d e p o s it th e m . ’ I agree w it h t h is v ie w , a n d I t h in k i t is f a t a l t o th e c la im o f th e s h ip a g a in s t th e consignee u n d e r th e c h a rte r.

T h e re appears t o be n o th in g in th e a u th o r itie s to n e g a tiv e th is c o n s tru c tio n o f th e c h a rte r. R e lia n c e was p lace d u p o n Petersen v . Freebody (8 A s p . M a r. L a w Cas. 5 5 ; 73 L . T . R e p . 163 ; (1895) 2 Q. B . 294).

T h is de cisio n re la te d to a cargo o f spars an d poles in th e S u rre y C o m m e rc ia l D o c k s u n d e r a c h a rte r w h ic h p ro v id e d t h a t cargo w as t o be ta k e n fro m alon gsid e th e s h ip a t m e rc h a n t’ s r is k a n d expense. T h e discha rge o f th e poles was in to lig h te rs alongside th r o u g h th e s h ip ’ s b o w p o rts u n d e r a clause e n t it lin g th e consignee t o “ discha rge o v e r side in to lig h te rs o r o th e r

w is e .” T h e c u s to m o f th e P o r t o f L o n d o n as to disch a rg e in to lig h te rs , w h ic h w as a fte rw a rd s p ro v e d in Glasgow N a v ig a tio n C om pany L im ite d v . H o w a rd B roth ers a n d Co. (11 A s p . M . C. 376 ; 102 L . T . R e p . 172), was n o t p ro v e d in Petersen v . Freebody (sup..). T h e c la im was fo r d e m u rra g e occasioned b y th e consignees h a v in g in s u ffic ie n t

m e n in th e lig h te rs . T h e express p ro v is io n was t h a t th e s hip was t o d e liv e r ove rsid e in to lig h te rs a n d n o cran e was used, a s h ip ’s m a n on a stage h a n g in g o u ts id e th e s h ip to o k h o ld o f th e end o f th e po le as i t cam e o u t o f th e b o w p o r t, a n d p u lle d i t t i l l th e m en in th e lig h te r g o t h o ld o f i t a n d c o m p le te d th e o p e ra tio n . T h e cou rt, tre a te d th e m a tte r as analogous t o d e liv e r y a t th e s h ip ’ s r a il, th e ship p la c in g th e p o le w h ere th e consignee c o u ld rea ch i t , a n d th e consignee th e n a ssistin g in h a n d lin g i t . T h e re w as n o q u e s tio n o f th e poles b e in g in a s lin g w h ic h h a d t o be released, o r b e in g lo w e re d b y s h ip ’ s ta c k le in t o th e lig h te rs . I n m y o p in io n th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c o u rt on these special fa c ts has n o b e a rin g on th e d iffe re n t fa c ts a n d la nguage o f th e p re se n t c h a rte r. H e re th e s h ip agrees t o d e liv e r in to w agons, a n d does so b y lo w e rin g th e t im b e r a tta c h e d b y ro p e t o a crane. I n m y v ie w th e s h ip has n o t d e liv e re d t i l l i t has lo w e re d i t in to w agons a n d released th e a tta c h m e n t t o th e crane. T i l l th is is done th e t im b e r is n o t in th e w a go n a n d is s t ill a tta c h e d t o th e s h ip o w n e r’ s ta c k le .

I n m y v ie w B ra n s o n , J . cam e t o a c o rre c t co n clu sio n , a n d th e ap pe al m u s t be dism issed w it h costs.

Greek, L . J . — T h is is a n a p p e a l a g a in s t th e ju d g m e n t o f B ra n s o n , J ., d is m is s in g a c la im m ad e b y th e a p p e lla n ts a g a in s t th e rece ive rs o f a p o r tio n o f th e cargo o f th e ste a m s h ip L a u r a M a e rs k a t th e p o r t o f G a rs to n , fo r a p o r tio n o f th e expenses in c u rre d in c o n n e c tio n w it h th e discharge o f th e cargo w h ic h th e s h ip o w n e r p a id , a n d w h ic h he says, u n d e r th e te rm s o f th e b i ll o f la d in g w h ic h in c o rp o ra te d th e te rm s o f th e B a ltic W o o d C h a rte r 1926 he was e n title d t o re c o v e r fro m th e d e fend an ts.

T h e cargo s hipp ed u n d e r th e c h a r te r - p a r ty was de scribed as deals, a n d (o r) b a tte n s , a n d (o r) bo ard s, a n d (o r) sca n tlin g s. T h e b ills o f la d in g re la te d t o a q u a n tity o f b a tte n ends, b u t th is fa c t is n o t m a te ria l t o a n y th in g we h a v e t o co n sid e r in th is ap peal.

T h e u su a l p ra c tic e fo r th e p o r t o f G a rs to n is to r th e w o r k o f discharge a n d re c e ip t o f th e cargo t o be done b y th e se rva n ts o f th e L o n d o n M id la n d a n d S c o ttis h R a ilw a y C o m p a n y, w h o are th e d o c k a u th o r ity . I t is a c o n v e n ie n t p ra c tic e w h ic h enables th e w h o le o f th e w o r k t o

d ° ? e c o n t ' r iu ° u s l y b y one b o d y o f m en , a n d th e charges a fte rw a rd s a llo c a te d to th e s h ip a n d to th e re c e iv e r o f th e carg o. T h e r a ilw a y c o m p a n y h a v e th e ir o w n schedule as t o th e charges w h ic h th e y m a k e a g a in s t a n d c o lle c t fr o m th e s h ip , a n d th e charges w h ic h th e y m a k e a g a in s t a n d c o lle c t fr o m th e re ce ive rs, b u t, o f course, th e ir a llo c a tio n c a n n o t d e te rm in e th e r ig h ts o f th e p a rtie s in te r se. These f a ll t o be d e te rm in e d b y th e b ill o f la d in g a gree m ent t o w h ic h th e re c e iv e r becomes a p a r t y b y ta k in g a n a s s ig n m e n t o f th e b i ll o f la d in g .

T h e m a te ria l p ro v is io n s o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty are c o n ta in e d in clauses 1 a n d 15. Clause 1 is as fo llo w s : “ I f th e consignees select one o f th e a lte rn a tiv e s m e n tio n e d in clause 15', o th e r th a n discha rge on t o th e q u a y ( w h ic h in c lu d e s

ASPINALL’S MARITIME LAW CASES.

3 1 App.] Dampselskab Svendborgv. London, Midland, and Scottish Railway. [App.

ro u g h s ta c k in g th e re o n i f a n d w h e re c u s to m a ry a n d n o t u s u a lly done b y th e consignees), a n y a d d itio n a l expense (p lu s 15 p e r c e n t, th e re o n a n d in a d d itio n th e charge fo r w o rk m e n ’ s co m p e n sa tio n in sura nce) o f such d e liv e ry oeyond th e expense o f d e liv e ry o n t o th e q u a y , as afo re said, s h a ll be p a id b y th e consignees to th e sh ip o w n e r, in a d d itio n t o th e a m o u n t(s ) ab ove m e n tio n e d . I f th e p o r t o f discharge is in c lu d e d in th e schedule o f a p p o rtio n m e n t la s t agreed betw een th e C h am b er o f S h ip p in g o f th e U n ite d K in g d o m a n d th e T im b e r T ra d e F e d e ra tio n o f th e U n ite d K in g d o m , such a d d itio n a l expense s h a ll be a sce rta in e d in accordance th e re W ith .” T h e a p p o rtio n m e n t as t o G a rs to n h a d n o t been agreed. Clause 15 is as fo llo w s : T he s h ip o w n e r’ s li a b i lit y s h a ll cease a t th e P o rt o f discharge w h e n th e cargo is discha rged a t th e s h ip ’ s r a il i f d ischa rged b y h a n d o r w ith in re a ch o f th e s h ip ’ s ta c k le o r shore crane ta c k le i f th e re b y d ischa rged (th e s h ip o w n e r P a ving th e o p tio n o f u s in g s h ip ’ s ta c k le o r shore crane w h e re p e rm is s ib le b y lo c a l re g u la tio n s ), t h e cargo s h a ll, h o w e v e r, be d ischa rged b y th e v essel in th e c u s to m a ry m a n n e r as fa s t as th e t'essel can d e liv e r d u rin g th e o r d in a r y w o r k in g hours o f th e p o r t, on t o th e q u a y a n d (o r) in to h g hters a n d (o r) c r a ft a n d (o r) r a fts a n d (o r) wagons a n d (o r) on t o bogies a n d th e re o n stow e d a n d (o r) stacke d as c u s to m a ry a t th e p o r t o f d is charge, th e consignees h a v in g th e r ig h t t o select a n y one o r m o re o f these a lte rn a tiv e s i f cus

to m a ry a n d a v a ila b le a t th e tim e o f discharge.

* o r a n y w o r k done b y th e vessel a t th e p o r t o f discharge b e y o n d d e liv e rin g cargo a t th e s h ip ’ s r a il i f d ischa rged b y h a n d , o r w it h in rea ch o f J-he s h ip ’ s ta c k le o r o f th e shore crane ta c k le i f h e re b y discha rged , th e consignees s h a ll p a y

° th e s h ip o w n e r th e cost th e re o f p lu s 15 p e r ' c n t. on th e a m o u n t th e re o f a n d in a d d itio n th e charge fo r w o rk m e n ’ s co m p e n s a tio n in sura nce, t th e p o r t o f discha rge is in c lu d e d in th e schedule o f a p p o rtio n m e n t la s t agreed be tw een he C h am b er o f S h ip p in g o f th e U n ite d K in g d o m

®hd th e T im b e r T ra d e F e d e ra tio n o f th e U n ite d k in g d o m th e charge fo r such w o r k s h a ll be as s e ttle d b y th e said schedule o f a p p o rtio n m e n t Plus 15 p e r c e n t, on th e a m o u n t o f such charges, aud in a d d itio n th e charges fo r w o rk m e n ’ s com p en sation in su ra n ce , a ll o f w h ic h are agreed a t th e a m o u n t s ta te d in clause 16 hereof. I n he e x e c u tio n o f a n y w o r k done b e y o n d d is charging cargo a t th e s h ip ’ s r a il o r w ith in rea ch

° t th e s h ip ’ s ta c k le o r shore crane ta c k le , as th e case m a y be, th e s h ip o w n e r s h a ll a c t as a s evedore w it h th e lia b ilitie s o n ly o f such a n d o t fu r th e r o r o th e rw is e , b u t th e s h ip o w n e r .h a ll n o t be lia b le fo r dam age b y fire , even ho ug h caused b y th e a c t o r n e g le c t o f th e lu p o w n e r o r h is s e rv a n ts o r o f a n y pe rson fo r w h om he is re s p o n s ib le .” T h e r a ilw a y c o m p a n y o lle cte d fro m th e s h ip 11s. p e r s ta n d a rd fo r eals a n d b a tte n s a n d U s . lO d. p e r s ta n d a rd

« h o ard s. I t was p ro v e d , a n d fo u n d b y th e wvc ’ ^ lat t h is charge in c lu d e d a p ro p o rtio n , 'c h he fo u n d to be th re e -e ig h th s o f th e e n u m e ra tio n p a id to th e m en w h o stoo d in le tr u c k s t o rece ive th e t im b e r in th e slings,

fo r th e w o r k o f m a n o e u v rin g th e tim b e r in to such a p o s itio n as w o u ld enable th e m t o place i t c o n v e n ie n tly in th e t r u c k o r w a g o n concerned.

T h e p la in tiffs say t h a t th is p r o p o r tio n o f th e charge w h ic h th e y h a d t o p a y is in respect o f w o r k w h ic h was done o n b e h a lf o f th e rece ive r, a n d w o r k fo r w h ic h th e y are e n title d t o be re p a id u n d e r clause 15 o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty . I n o rd e r to c o rre c tly in te r p r e t clause 15 o f th e c h a r te r - p a r ty , i t seems t o m e necessary to con sid er, in th e absence o f express agree m ent, w h a t p a r t o f th e w o r k o f discharge a n d re c e ip t o f th e cargo is th e o b lig a tio n o f th e s h ip , a n d w h a t p a r t is th e o b lig a tio n o f th e re ce ive r.

I n m y ju d g m e n t, i t has been accepted fo r m a n y yea rs t h a t th e la w o n t h is s u b je c t is a c c u ra te ly s ta te d in th e ju d g m e n t o f L o r d E s h e r, M .R ., in Petersen v . Freebody (8 A s p . M a r. L a w Cas., a t p . 5 6 ; 73 L . T . R e p . a t p . 1 6 4 ); (1895) 2 Q. B . 294, a t p . 297).

I t is t r u e t h a t t h a t was a c la im f o r d e m urra ge, b u t th e c o u r t h a d t o con sid er w h o was re sponsible fo r th e d e la y to th e s h ip , a n d fo r t h a t purpose t o decide w h e n th e o b lig a tio n o f th e s h ip t o d e liv e r h a d been c o m p lie d w ith , a n d w h e n th e o b lig a tio n o f th e b i ll o f la d in g h o ld e r t o receive th e cargo h a d com m enced.

I n g iv in g ju d g m e n t L o r d E s h e r used these w o rd s : “ T h e o p e ra tio n , th e re fo re , w h ic h is to ta k e e ig h t days, is an o p e ra tio n t o be p e r

fo rm e d as be tw een th e s h ip o w n e r a n d th e consignees. W h ic h e v e r w o rd be used, w h e th e r i t be c a lle d a ‘ d is c h a rg in g ’ o r a ‘ d e liv e ry ,’

a n d w h a te v e r be th e circum stances o f th e d e liv e ry , one p a r ty is t o g iv e , a n d th e o th e r is t o ta k e , d e liv e ry a t one a n d th e same tim e , a n d b y one a n d th e same o p e ra tio n . I t fo llo w s t h a t b o th m u s t be p re se n t to ta k e th e ir p a rts in t h a t o p e ra tio n . Those p a rts are, th e ship has t o d e liv e r a n d th e consignee t o ta k e de

liv e r y — w h e re ? E a c h has to a c t w it h in his o w n d e p a rtm e n t. T h e sh ip o w n e r acts fro m th e d eck o r some p a r t o f h is o w n s h ip , b u t a lw ays on b o a rd h is s h ip . T h e consignee’ s place is alongside th e s h ip w h e re th e t h in g is to be d e liv e re d t o h im . I f th e d e liv e ry is t o be on to a n o th e r ship, he m u s t be on t h a t s h ip ; i f in to barge o r lig h te r, on t h a t ba rge o r lig h te r ; i f on t o th e q u a y , on th e q u a y . W h e re v e r th e d e liv e ry is to be, th e sh ip o w n e r, on th e one h a n d , m u s t g iv e d e liv e ry . I f he m e re ly p u ts th e goods on th e r a il o f h is s h ip , he does n o t g iv e d e liv e ry ; t h a t is n o t enough. I f , on th e o th e r h a n d , th e consignee m e re ly stands on th e o th e r s h ip , o r on th e barge o r lig h te r , o r on th e q u a y , a n d does n o th in g , he does n o t ta k e d e liv e ry . T h e sh ip o w n e r has p e rfo rm e d th e p r in c ip a l p a r t o f his o b lig a tio n w h e n he p u t th e goods o v e r th e r a il o f his s h ip , b u t I t h in k he m u s t do s o m e th in g m ore— he m u s t p u t th e goods in such a p o s itio n t h a t th e c on

signee can ta k e d e liv e ry o f th e m . H e m u s t p u t th e m so fa r o v e r th e side as t h a t th e consignee can b e g in t o a c t u p o n th e m , b u t th e m o m e n t th e goods are p u t w it h in re a ch o f th e consignee he m u s t ta k e h is p a r t in th e o p e ra tio n . A t one m o m e n t o f tim e th e s h ip o w n e r a n d th e consignee are b o th a c tin g — th e

App.] Dampselskab Svendborg v. London, Midland, and Scottish Railway. [App.

one in g iv in g a n d th e o th e r in ta k in g d e liv e ry ; a t a n o th e r m o m e n t th e jo in t a c t is fin is h e d . W h e re goods are slu ng , a n d lo w e re d g ra d u a lly o v e r th e side o f th e s h ip in to a lig h te r , th e y c a n n o t a ll be d e p o s ite d on th e same s p o t in th e same lig h te r . I t is o b v io u s , th e re fo re , t h a t tho se o n b o a rd m u s t h e lp in th e o p e ra tio n o f ta k in g d e liv e r y b y g u id in g th e t h in g as i t is c o m in g d o w n in to th e lig h te r . I n th e p re se n t case th e d e liv e r y w as o f spars, b u t i t was s t ill a jo in t o p e ra tio n in w h ic h each p a r ty h a d to ta k e h is p a r t. T h e s h ip o w n e r h a d t o g e t th e spars in such a p o s itio n as t h a t th e y c o u ld be ta k e n o u t o f th e s h ip . H e h a d n o t c o m p le te d h is p a r t o f th e o p e ra tio n b y m e re ly g e ttin g th e spa r on to th e stage, b u t, w h e n one e n d o f th e spa r w as tip p e d o v e r th e side o f th e stage so as t o com e w it h in th e re a ch o f th e m en in th e lig h te r , th e y h a d t o ta k e t h e ir p a r t in th e o r d in a r y o p e ra tio n in th e o r d in a r y w a y ; th e y h a d t o assist in g e ttin g th e spars in to th e

W dokumencie Reports of Cases Relating to Maritime Law : containing all the decisions of the courts of law and equity in the United Kingdom, and selections from the more important decisions in the colonies and the United States, 1937 Vol. 18 (Stron 47-53)