REPRINT ED ITIO N IS PUBLISHED BY
DENNIS 8c CO., INC. (Publishers), Buffalo, N. Y., U. S. A.
B U TTER W O R TH & CO. (Publishers) LTD., London, England
Reprinted by photolitho in the U.S.A.
by Cushing-Malloy, Inc., of Ann Arbor, Michigan
E E P O R T S
OF CASES R ELATIN G TO
M A R I T I M E L A W ;
CONTAINING A L L TH E
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY -
IN
Cljc Qitnlteïr Ringîiom,
AND SELECTIONS FROM THE MORE IMPORTANT DECISIONS
Cije Colonics Ettïr tije HniteîJ States.
E D IT E D B T
JAMES P. ASPINALL, Q.C., and BUTLER ASPINALL, Barrister-at-Law.
VOL. V IL ,
N e w S eries, fr o m 1 8 9 0 to 1 8 9 5 . (VOL. X., O.S.)
L O N D O N : H O R A C E C O X , B R E A M ’ S B U I L D I N G S , E . C . 1 8 9 6
PRINTED BY HORACE COX, WINDSOR HOUSE, BREAM’S BUILDINGS, E.C.
Nfv -
Ç *\cüäj
» M y - Y- _
I N D E X
TO
üsT^IMlE S OF T H E CASES
R E P O R T E D I N T H I S V O L U M E .
Ac c o m a c, Th e ...^ 3
Af r ic a n o, Th e... Ai t k e n, Li l b u r n, AND CO... Al e r t, Th e ... Al n e Ho l m e, Th e Al p s, Th e ... Al s a c e a n d Lo r r a in e, Th e AND CO. V. ERNSTHAUSEN 462 544 344 337 362 An n a a n d Be r t h a, Th e ... 31
Ap o l l o, Th e... 115
Ar b i t r a t i o n b e t w e e n Ke i g h l e y, Ma x t e d, a n d Co. a n d Br y a n, Du r a n t, a n d Co., Re ... 418, 268 Ar g o, Th e... *••••'•... 534
Ar m s t r o n ga n d o t h e r sv. Al l a n Br o t h e r s 277, 293 Ar r o w Sh i p p i n g Co m p a n y Li m i t e dv. Th e Ty n e Im p r o v e m e n t Co m m i s s i o n e r s... 373
As i a, Th e ... As s ic u r a z io n i Ge n e r a l ia n d Sc h e n k e r a n d Co. v. t h e ss. Be s s ie Mo r r is Co m p a n y Li m i t e d a n d Br o w n e... Au g u s t, Th e... Au s t i n Fr i a r s, Th e ... 25 217 110 503 Ba s s e t t Ho u n d, Th e... ^ (’ 7
Ba u m v o l l Ma n u f a c t u r v o n Ca r l Sc h e ib l e k Fu r n e s s... 59> 1 3 0’ ^ 3 Be d o u i n, Th e ... Be l l a n d Co. v. An t w e r p, Lo n d o n, a n d Br a z il Li n e... Z Z Be n t s e n v. Ta y l o r, So n s, a n d Co... Bl u e Be l l, Th e ... " ¿ j 557 Bo n a, Th e... Br a g in t o nv. Ch a p m a n a n d o t h e r s... Br i g e l l a, Th e... Br is t o l a n d We s t o f En g l a n d Ba n k Li m i t e d v. Mi d l a n d Ra i l w a y Co m p a n y ... Br o w n v. La w... ggg Bu l m a n v. Fe n w i c k ... Bu r c h a r d a n d o t h e r s v. Ma c p a r l a n e a n d o t h e r s ... Ca m e r o n v. ... Ca p b l l a, Th e ... Ca r l XV., Th e ... Ca s t l e g a t e, Th e... Ca s t l e g a t e St e a m s h i p Co m p a n y De m p s e y a n d Co... Ce l t i c Ki n g, Th e ... Ch a l m e r s v. Sc o p e n ic h... page Ch a r l t o n, Th e... Ci t y o p Ne w c a s t l e, Th e... Cl i n k u. JJ*d f o r d a n d Co... Cl i v e d e n, Th e... Co u r i e r, Th e ... Cr e s c e n t, Th e... Cr e s s in g t o n, Th e ... Cr y s t a l, Th e ...% ... Cu r f e w, Th e ... Da r t, Th e... De l a n o, Th e... Di a n a, Th e ... Dic t a t o r, Th e ...475,
Dix o n a n d o t h e r s v. Si r He n r y Ca l c r a f t... Dr e y f u s Br o t h e r s v. Pe r u v i a n Gu a n o Co m p a n y... Du k e o f Bu c c l e u g h...38> Du n l o p a n d So n s v. Ba l f o u r, Wi l l ia m s o n, a n d Co. ... ... Dw i n a, Th e ... Ea s t e r n St e a m s h i p Co m p a n y v. Sm i t h a n d 77 n 403 69 93 Li m i t e d -v. ... 108,
171 569 546 10 489 157 297 27 513 29 353 523 489 251 161 225 294 181 173 68 320 158 242 . 284 186 440 OTHERS ... Ed e n, Th e... 4 7 4 Ed d y s t o n e Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y, Re-, E x -parte We s t e r n Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y ... 167
Ed e n m o r e, Th e ... 334
Ei d e r, Th e ... 354
...
66El t o n, Th e En g l i s h m a n a n d Au s t r a l i a ...603, 605 Fe l l o w s a n d Ow n f.r so ft h e Lo r d St a n l e y... 298
Fe r r o, Th e ... 309
Fr e d, Th e ... 550
Fr e d e r ic k Go r d o n v. Fr a n c is a n d Co... 359
Fu r n e s s v. Ch a s. Te n n a n t, So n s, a n d Co... 179
Ge n e r a l Go r d o n, Th e ... 317
Ge o r g, Th e ... 476
Ge r t o r, Th e... 472
Gi l r o y a n d Co. v. Pr ic ea n d Co... 314
Gip s y Qu e e n, Th e ... 586
Gl e n d a r r o c h, Th e... 423 Gl e n d e v o n, Th e
Gl e n l i v e t.
439 , Th e ... 342, 395
N A M E S OP C ASES.
Gl y n n v. Ma r g e t s o n...page 148, 366
Go o da n d Co. v. Is a a c s ... .»... 212
Go s l in g t>. Gr e e n... 243
Go s l in g v. Ne w t o na n d Ea o e r s... 587
Gr e a t No r t h e r n St e a m s h i p Fi s h i n g Co m p a n y Li m i t e d v. Ow n e r s o pt h e Cr e s c e n t... 297
Gu r n e y, Be; E x p a rte Hu g h e s... 249
Ha n n a y d. Sm u r t h w a i t e a n do t h e r s... 380, 485 Ha n s e nv. Ha r r o l d Br o t h e r s ... 464
Ha r r is v. Be s t, Ri l e y, a n d Co... 272
He d l e y d. Pi n k n e y a n d So n s’ St e a m s h i p Co m p a n y Li m i t e d ... ... 135, 483 He r o, Th e... 86
He s k e t h, Th e ... 160
He s t ia, Th e ... 590
Hi c k v. Ba y m o n d a n d Be i d ... 23, 97, 233 Hi c kv. Bo d o c a n a c h t, So n s, a n d Co. ... 23, 97, 233 Hi g h l a n d Ch i e f, Th e ... 176
Hi n e Br o t h e r s v.Th e St e a m s h i p In s u r a n c e Sy n d ic a t e Li m i t e d... 558
Ho g a r t h v. Mi l l e r a n d Co... 1
Ho r n e t, Th e ... 262
Ho u s t o na n d Co. v. Sa n s in e n a a n d Co. ... 150, 311 Hu g h e s, Ex p a r te ; Rs Gu r n e t... 249
Hu n t s m a n, Th e ... 431
Hy d a r n e s St e a m s h ip Co m p a n y v. Th e In d e m- n i t y Mu t u a l Ma r i n e As s u r a n c e Co m p a n y Li m i t e d... 470, 553 In d u s t r i e, Th e... 457
Ir r a w a d d y Fl o t i l l a Co m p a n y v. By w a n d a s s 129 Is m a y, Im r i e, a n d Cov. Bl a k e... 189
J. B . Hi n d e, Th e... 257
Ja e d e r^n, Th e... 260
Ja m ie s o n v. Ne w c a s t l e St e a m s h i p Fr e ig h t In s u r a n c e As s o c ia t io n ... 562, 593 Ja n e, Th e ... 41
Ju n o, Th e ... 506
Ma r i a n n e, Th e ... page 34 Ma r p e s3a, Th e ... 155
Ma r y Th o m a s, Th e ... 495
Ma s s e yv. Mo r r is ... 586
Ma y o r, Al d e r m e n, a n d Bu r g e s s e s o f So u t h- p o r t v. Mo r r is... 279
McCo w a n v. Ba i n e a n d o t h e r s ... 89
Me c c a, Th e ... 529
Me r c h a n t Pr i n c e, Th e... 208
Me r s e y Do cks a n d Ha r b o u r Bo a r d v. Tu r n e r a n d o t h e r s ... 369
Mi d a s, Th e ... 77 n Mi n n i e, Th e... 521
Mo g u l St e a m s h i p Co m p a n y v. McGr e g o r, Go w, a n d C o ... 120
Mo l i e r e, Th e ... 364
Mo n a, Th e... 478
Mo n t e Bo s a, Th e ... 326
Mo n t g o m e r ie a n d o t h e r s v. Un i t e d Kin g d o m Mu t u a l As s u r a n c e As s o c ia t io n ... 19
Mo r g a nv. Ca s t l e g a t e St e a m s h ip Co m p a n y ... 284
Mo u n t Ve r n o n, Th e ... 32
Mo w b r a y v. Me r k y w e a t h e r ... 590
Mu n r o e, T n E ... 407
N . St r o n g, Th e... 194
Na u t i k, Th e... 591
Ne p t u n e St e a m Na v i g a t i o n Co m p a n y v. SCLATER AND PROCTER ... 523
Ne w Pu l t o n, Th e ... 81
Ni f a, Th e ... 324
Ni o b e, Th e... 89
No r t h Br i t a i n, Th e.. ... 413
O ’Ne i l l v. Ev e r e s t... 163
Or i e n t A, Th e ... 508, 529 Or i e n t a l St e a m s h i p Co m p a n y Li m i t e d v. Ty l o r a n d a n o t h e r ... 377
Or i o n, Th e ... 88
Ka t e B . Jo n e s, Th e ... 332
Ka t y, Th e ... 510, 527 Ke i g h l e y, Ma x t e d, a n d Co., a n d Br y a n, Du r a n t, a n d Co., Re a n Ar b i t r a t i o n b e t w e e n ... 268, 418 Ke l l y a n d Ha k d y v. Is l e o f Ma n St e a m Pa c k e t Co m p a n y, Li m i t e d ... 539
Kn u t s f o r d, Th e ... 33
Ko n g Ma g n u s, Th e... 64
P. Ca l a n d, Th e ... 83, 206, 317 Pe r u v i a n Gu a n o Co m p a n y!». Dr e y f u s Br o t h e r s 225 Pe t r e l. Th e... 434
Ph e l p s Ja m e sa n d Co. v. Hi l l a n d Co... 42
Pl e i a d e s, Th e ... 41
Pr i m u l a, Th e ... 429
Pr in c e s s, Th e ... 432
Pu g s l e ya n d Co. v. Bo p k in s a n d Co... 215
La n c a s h ir e, Th e Le p a n t o, Th e ... 115 352, 376 ... 192
Li t t l e a n d o t iie r s v. Th e Po r t Ta l b o t Co m p a ny ... Liv e r p o o l, Th e ... 115 340 Lo n d o n As s o c ia t io n o f Sh ip o w n e r s a n d Br o k e r s Li m i t e d a n d t h e P. a n d O. St e a m Na v i g a t i o n Co m p a n y v. Lo n d o n a n d In d i a Do c k s Jo i n t Co m m i t t e e a n d t h e Lo n d o n a n d St. Ka t h a r i n e Do c k Co m p a n y ... Lo r do ft h e Is l e s, Th e... Lo r d St a n l e y, Th e... 195 500 298 Ly s a g h t v. Co l e m a n a n do t h e r s 552 Ma a s d a m, Th e ... Ma c k e n z ie v. Ma c in t o s h Ma i n, Ti i e... Ma r g e t s o n a n d o t h e rv. ... 400
... 14, 53 ... 424
Gl y n a n do t h e r s 148, 366 Qu e e n Vi c t o r i a, Th e ... 9
Be c e p t a, Th e ... 359
Be g. v. Hu g g in s ... 666
Be g. v. Ju d g e o f t h e Ci t y o f Lo n d o n Co u r t a n d Pa y n e... 140
Be g. v. Sa m u e l ... 595
Be is c h e r v. Bo r w ic k... 493
Be n e y o. Ma g is t r a t e s o f Ki r k c u d b r i g h t... 221
Be s t i t u t i o n St e a m s h i p Co m p a n y v. Si r Jo h n Pi r i e a n d Co...H n . Bi a l t o, Th e... 35
Bic h a r d s o n Sp e n c ea n d Co. v. Ro w n t r e e ... 482
Ri v e r De r w e n t, Th e... 37
Ro b e r t s a n d So n v. Oc e a n Ma r in e In s u r a n c k. Co m p a n y... 413
Ro b i n, Th e ... 184
M ARITIM E LAW CASES.
vN AM ES OF CASES.
BoSE AND OTHERS V. B AN K OF AUSTRALASIA page 445
Bo u g e m o n t, Th e... 437
Sa l t b u r n, Th e ... 325,
Sa l t Un io n Li m i t e d v. Wo o d ... Sa n s in e n a a n d Co. v. Ho u s t o n a n d Co. ... 150,
Sa r a g o s s a, Th e ... Sa t a n i t a ... St r u t e g a v. At t w o o l ... Sc h w a n, Th e... Se r r a in o a n d So n sv. Ca m p b e l l a n d o t h e r s ... Si m o n, Is r a e l, a n d Co. v. Se d g w ic k a n d OTHERS ... ’ Sm i t h, Hi l l, a n d Co. v. Py m a n, Be l l, a n d Co. Sm i t h a n d Se r v ic e v. Bo s a r io Ni t r a t e Co m p a n y ... .. Sm u t h w a i t ea n d Co. v. Ha n n a ya n do t h e r s 380, So t o, Th e ... ... Sp r e e, Th e... St a f f o r d v. Dy e r ... St e i n m a n a n d Co. v- Th e An o ie r Li n e... St r a t h g a r r y, Th e... Su l t a n, Th e ... Ta l b o t, Th e... Te r e s a, Th e... Th a m e s a n d Me r s e y Ma r i n e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y v. Pit t s, So n, a n d Ki n g ... Th a r s is Su l p h u r a n d Co p p e r Co m p a n y v. Mo r e l l Br o s... Th e t a, Th e ... ... 474 281 311 289 580 489 347 48 245 7 417 485 335 397 568 46 573 59 36 505 302 106 480 Th i n a n d Si n c l a i r v.Eic h a r d s a n d Co. . . . page 165 Th io d o nv. Ti n d a l l a n do t h e r s... 76
Ti n d a l la n d Dr y h u r s t, Ex p a r te ; Bu r c h a r dv. Ma c f a r l a n e ... 03
Ti n d l e v. Da v is o n ... 100
Ti t i a, Th e... ... 32
Tu r n e r v. Me r s e y Do c k s a n d Ha r b o u r Bo a r d... 04; 037, 369 Ty n w a l d, Th e... 539
Um b i l o, Th e... 26
Un io n St e a m s h ip Co m p a n y v. Cl a r id g e ... 412
Ut o p ia, Th e... 408
398 597 Wa l t e r D . Wa l l e t t, Th e ... We g a, Th e... We l c h, Pe r r in, a n d Co. t>. An d e r s o n, An d e r s o n, a n d C o... 177
We s t e r n Ma r in e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y, Ex p a r t e ; re Ed d y s t o n e Ma r in e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n y... 137
Wh i t e a n dCo. v. Fu r n e s s, Wi t h y, a n d Co... 574
Wi l h e l m Te l l, Th e ... 329
Wi l l i a m s, To n e y, a n d Fi e l d, Li m i t e d,v. Kn i g h t 500 Wil s o n, So n s, a n d Co. v. Ba l c a r s e s Br o o k St e a m s h ip Co m p a n y ... Wi l s o n, So n s, a n d Co. v. Ki l l i c e a n d o t h e r s Win e s e a d, Th e... 321 275 547 OKQ Za n z i b a r, Th e ... . 369 Ze t a, Th e ... 64> “ 37’ 369
SUBJECTS OE CASES.
ABATE M E N T.
See Practice, No. 21.
A D M IR A L T Y COURT ACT.
See Damage, Nos. 1, 2.
A D M IR A L T Y JURISDICTION.
See Collision, No. 18 — County Courts A dm iralty Jurisdiction.
ADVANCED E E E IG H T.
See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 1, 2, 9—Marine Insurance, No. 17.
ANCHOR.
See Collision, Nos. 7, 33, 34.
APPEAL.
See Collision, No. 1— County Courts A dm iralty Juris
diction, Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9— Practice, Nos. 3, 4, o, 6, 24, 25— Salvage, Nos. 8, 16.
APPRENTICE.
See Thames Navigation, No. 1.
A RBITRATIO N.
See Practice, No. 7.
ARREST OF SHIP.
See Practice, N09. 32, 33.
ASSESSORS.
See County Courts A dm iralty Jurisdiction, Nos. 1, 10.
B A IL.
See Collision, No. 18—Salvage, No. 15.
BANKRUPTCY.
See Stoppage in Transitu.
B IL L OF LADING.
See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 3 to 9, 11,15, 16, 17,,18, 28, 29, 34, 35— Charter Party No 7— County Courts A dm iralty Jurisdiction, Nos. 4, 5—Sale oj Goods, No. 2.
BOARD OF TRADE.
See Unseaworthy Ship, Nos. 1, 2.
BRISTOL CHANNEL.
See Collision, No. 5.
BYE-LAWS.
See Harbours and Docks, Nos. 2, 3, 4.
CANCELLATIO N CLAUSE.
See Charter Party, No. 2—Marine Insurance, No. 6.
CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
1. Advance freight— Charter-party—Advantage of exchange—Advance not taken.—Where a clause in a charter-party provides for “ cash for steamer’s ordinary disbursements at port or ports of loading . . . to be advanced at ex
change of 50d. to the dollar . . . on account of freight (captain’s receipts to be conclusive evidence of the amount of such advances, and of their having been properly made), and balance of freight on rig h t and true delivery of the cargo in cash ” ; the shipowners may ask through their master for sufficient to pay their disbursements i f they require it, but they are not bound to do so, and hence, where no advance freight is ob
tained, the charterers cannot deduct from the freight the profit they would have made by the difference of exchange on the amount spent in disbursements at the port of loading i f they had advanoed the money. (Adm.) The P rim ula page 429 2. Advance of freight — Charter-party — “ I f re
quired” — Charterer’s lia b ility on Joss—Where a cargo is shipped under a charter-party containing the clause “ one-third freight, if required, to be advanced, less 3 per cent, for interest and insu
rance,” and the vessel and cargo are lost, the charterers are not liable to pay the advanced freight if the shipowners do not ask for payment u n til after the loss. (Ct. of App.) Smith, H ill, and Co. v. Pyman, Bell, and Co... ... 7 3. B ill of lading— Charter-party—“ A ll other con
ditions as per charter-party ” —Incorporation.
Where a b ill of lading contains certain excepted perils and after them the words “ paying freight and all other conditions as per charter-party,”
the latter words do not incorporate the excepted perils in the charter-party, but only those con
ditions in the charter-party which are to be per
formed by the consignee of the goods. (Ct. of App.) Serraino and Sons v. Campbell ... 4i 4. B ill of la d in g —Charter-party—Express stipula
tions— Governing contract.-—By a charter-party i t was provided that the shipowners should fix in a suitable place proper refrigerating machinery and insulated chambers, to be kept at a tem
perature not exceeding 28 degrees Fahrenheit ; any accident, breakdown, or mishap to the ma
chinery or cause beyond the owner s control not preventing ; and i t was further provided that the
“ performance by the owners of their part of the agreement is subject to the exceptions and perils mentioned in the b ill of lading according to form attached hereto and the agreement herein con
tained shall be read as if such clause and con
ditions were herein repeated ; all cargo shipped by the charterers in pursuance of this agreement shall be received and carried subject to the terms and conditions in the said b ill of lading, except as altered by these presents.” By the terms of the b ill of lading any loss or damage was excepted which m ight result from the “ consequence of any damage, breakdown, or in ju ry to a defect in hull,
SUBJECTS OP CASES.
tackle, boilers, or machinery or their appur
tenances, refrigerating engines or chambers, or any part thereof, however such damage, defect, or in ju ry m ight be caused, and notwithstanding tha t the same might have existed at or at any time before the loading or sailing of the vessel, or by unseaworthiness of the ship at the beginning or any period of the voyage, provided a ll reason
able means had been taken to provide against such unseaworthiness.” In an action for damage to cargo caused by the refrigerators being un fit and insufficient, and by the insulated chambers not having been kept at the agreed temperature, i t was held that, as the stipulation to provide proper refrigerating machinery and keep the insulated chambers at a proper temperature was an express stipulation, the b ill of lading must betaken to have been altered by the charter-party so as to prevent the exceptions in the b ill of lading operating to exempt the shipowners from performing their ex
press contract; and further, that even if the per
formance of the charter-party was subject to the exceptions in the b ill of lading, the contract in the charter-party as to the refrigerating ma
chinery was so clear and unequivocal tha t i t could not be held to be overridden by the general pro
visions of the b ill of lading. (H. of L. affirming Ct. of App.) Houston and Co. v. Sansinena and Co...page 311 5. B ill of lading— Construction— Special purpose—
General words.—Where an agreement in special terms and for a special purpose has been entered into between a shipper of goods and shipowner, such special terms cannot be modified by reading into them the general words of a b ill of lading under which the goods have been shipped. (H.
of L.) Houston and Co. v. Sansinena and Co. ... 311 6. B ill of lading—Construction—P articular con
tract— General words.—Where general words are used in a b ill of lading contract, and are intended to be made applicable to the circum
stances of the particular contract, the main object and intent of the particular contract are to be looked at, and the general words are to be lim ited to that view (H. of L.) Qlgn v.
Margetson ... 366 7. B ill of lading — Holders of title to goods—
Warehousemen — Conversion— L ia b ility . — C., a merchant at B ristol, imported goods from H. and Co. in Canada, the course of business between them being tha t H. and Co. shipped the goods to this country, receiving bills of lading made out to their order. These bills of lading, together w ith bills of exchange drawn by them on C-, were sold by H. and Co. to various Canadian banks, and were then remitted to banks in this country w ith a document called a hypothecation note. B y the terms of the hypothecation note the banks here m ight retain the bills of lading u n til payment of the bills of exchange if they were not satisfied w ith C.’s acceptances. C. was a customer of the plain tiff’s bank, and in the months of October and November, 1890, he re
quested the plaintiffs to pay his acceptances in respect of the several consignments of goods imported by them in the way referred to. This the plaintiffs did, receiving the bills of lading for the shipments from the holders of the accept
ances. The consignments in question on arrival in this country had, for the convenience of all concerned, been warehoused by the shipowners at the defendants’ warehouses in Bristol for delivery by them against the shipowners’
delivery orders. Shortly before the plaintiffs had so paid C.’s acceptances fo r him he had, by the negligence of the defendants’ servants, suc
ceeded in getting possession of a large quantity of the goods from the defendants’ warehouses w ithout presenting any delivery orders. In Dec. 1890 C. became insolvent. Thereupon the plaintiffs, having obtained delivery orders from the shipowners, presented them to the de
fendants and demanded delivery of the goods.
Upon the defendants failing to deliver the goods which C. had irregularly obtained, the plaintiff®
brought an action against the defendants to recover the value of the goods. Held, that, independently of the B ills of Lading Aot, the plaintiffs were entitled at common law to recover the goods, their position being tha t of pledgees of the f bills of lading, notwithstanding th a t the defendants were not in possession of the goods at the time when the plaintiffs’ title thereto accrued. (Ct. of App.) Bristol and West of England Bank, Lim ited, v. The M id lan d Railway Company ... page 69 8. B ill of lading—Perils of the sea— Negligence—
Burden of proof.— Where a b ill of lading con
tains the customary exception of loss by perils of the sea, and an action is brought by the shipper against the shipowner fo r damage to goods shipped thereunder, i f the shipowner pleads and proves perils of the sea, the burden is upon the plaintiff of proving tha t the damage was caused by the negligence of the defendant’s servants.
(Ct. of App.) The Glendarroch ... 429 9. Charter-party— Provision as to signing bills of
lading—Duty to present fo r signature—Advance freight—Measure of damages.—By a charter- party i t was agreed tha t the ship was to load a cargo of coals and deliver the same “ on being paid freight on bills of lading quantity . . . one-third on signing bills of lading and the re
mainder on unloading in cash . . . the captain or agents to sign bills of lading for weight put on board as presented to him according to railway or dock company’ s weight w ithout prejudice to the tenour of the charter- party, and w ithout any alteration w ith in twenty- four hours after coals on board.” The ship was loaded and had just sailed when she sank and the cargo was lost. The charterers had not a t tha t time presented any bills of lading fo r the captain’s signature, and afterwards refused to present any. In an action by the owners against the charterers : Held, that there was an im plied obligation on the charterers to present bills for the captain’s signature immediately the ship was loaded, and by not doing so they had committed a breach of their duty under the charter-party in respect of which the owners were entitled to damages, the measure of damages being the advance freight which they would otherwise have obtained. (Ct. of App.) Oriental Steamship Co.
Lim ited v. Tylor and another ... ... 377 10. Common carrier in In d ia — English Common
Law —In d ia n Contract Act 1872.—The lia b ility of a common carrier of goods for hire in India is governed by the English common law, and is not affected by the provisions of the Indian Contract A ct, 1872, and consequently owners of steamers carrying goods as common carriers on the Ir r a waddy are liable for their loss, except where caused by the act of God or the Queen’s enemies. (P. C.) Irrawaddy F lo tilla Co. v.
Bywamdass ... 129 11. Contract of affreightment— B ill of lading— Con
struction— Law of flag— Sale of goods by master.
— Where cargo was shipped by B ritish subjects on board a German ship for carriage to England under English bills of lading, the Court, in an action for short delivery, Held, tha t the master
m a r i t i m e l a w c a s e s
.
SUBJECTS O í CASES.
was entitled to deal w ith i t according to the law of the fla g ; and hence, where he had sold part ot the cargo at a port of distress without instruc
tions from the shippers, such sale was justifiable by German law, as he had, after taking t e es advice he could obtain, sold the cargo m honest belief that he was acting for the best lo r a ll parties in the emergency which had arisen.
(Adm. Div.) The A u g u s t...
12. Contract of a ffre ig h tm e n t— C h a rte r-p a rty Lon struction—Law of fla g —Circum stances to oe take n into account.— The fact that goo s ar carried in a foreign ship is not in itself cone usi to show tha t the charter-party under which tne goods are carried must be construed according to the law of the flag. A ll the circumstances, such as the language in which i t is written, t e s p lations i t contains, and the parties, mus ® sidered in determining what law is tobe app • (Ct. of App.) The Industrie... ..
13. Contract of affreightment— Charter-party Com struction—Law of f l a g —Circumstances attaching to the contract.—The plaintiffs, who were German subjects domiciled in Germany and owners o German steamship, entered into a charter-p J
■with the defendants, who were B ritish subjects through their (the plaintiffs’) agent, a ®rn\
subject, whereby the defendants chartered tne steamship Industrie for the carriage of a cargo°
rice in bags from abroad to a port in Eng an orders. The charter-party, which was made m London, and was in the English language, co tained a ll the provisions usually found in , charter-parties; and also the following wor ,
■“ freight being payable at and after the ra
■35s. sterling per ton of 20cwt. delivere • • ■ a ll freight to be paid on rig ht delivery o cargo if discharged in the United King cash as cu sto m a ry, i f on th e C o n tin e n t in c . th e exchange o f th e d a y o f fin a l discharge wutn- o u t d iso o u n t.” T h e sh ip proceeded to her po lo a d in g , and th e re to o k on b o a rd a car5 ° ° _.i b e lo n g in g to th e defendants, and on her o voyage, h a v in g encountere d bad w e a t > P in t o a p o rt o f d istre ss, w hen i t was fo u n t h e cargo h a d susta ined damage, and ® ’ a c tin g u n d e r th e advice o f surveyors, o f th e cargo as b e in g u n fit fo r re sh lP“ ?,
<an aotion by the shipowner to recover
on the damaged cargo which was sol ■ ’ f the Court of Appeal (reversing the de“ 8,. , j Barnes, J.), tha t the defendants were not liable, as the charter-party must be cons u d English contract according to Eng is >
th a t the law of the flag did not a p p ly . and th a t the payment of freight being expressly dealt w ith in the charter-party none was recoverable in respect of cargo not delivered a P 457 destination. (Ct. of App.) The Industrie - ..
14. Contract of affreightment peri.
Voyage—Possibility of performance y J Perils— L ia b ility .—A shipowner who h a s , g d th a t his ship shall proceed to a ce ** P ^j,e thero deliver the cargo, unless prev j
perile Of the sea, is not justified “
the voyage, unless the excepted pen ^ it, either physically impossible to complete the voyage, or so clearly unreasonabe ^ henc0 possible from a. business point of v . t where a vessel has gone ashore bu eed- off and repaired, so as to be capable of proceed mg to the port of discharge, wriaun hart erers tim e, the shipowners are liable to reaaoI1 of
fo r any loss tha t they may sustain . the shipowner not carrying out the c ¿ (Ct. of App.) The A ssicu ra zio m G e n e ra li a n a
Schenker f Co., v. S.S. Bessie Morris Co. Ltd., and another... .. 217 15. Damage to cargo.— B ill of lading— Exception
of masters and mariners negligence.— Negligence of stevedore—Management of ship—Bad stowage.
_A. cargo of oranges was shipped on board the defendants’s vessel under a b ill of lading, which contained a clause excepting “ damage from any act, neglect, or default of the pilot, master, Or marinere in the navigation or management of the ship.” The cargo was damaged through the improper and negligent stowage of the stevedore.
Held that inasmuch as the stevedore was not included in the lis t of persons mentioned in the b ill of lading whose acts and defaults were excepted, the defendants were not exempted from lia b ility Held also, that the words “ manage
ment of the ship ” did not include bad stowage.
(Adm. Div.) The Ferro... 309 16 Damage to cargo—B ill of lading Excepted
P e rils-Neglect of master to remedy defect.—
Where by the terms of a b ill of lading shipowners are relieved from lia b ility for damage to cargo when caused by “ perils of the sea and accidents of navigation, even when occasioned by the negli
gence, default, or error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, or servants of the shipowners, and the cargo is damaged by sea-water getting into the hold through an iron rive t being loosened bv stress of weather, a fact which the master dis
covers during the voyage but neglects to remedy and thereby permits the damage to be largely in creased, such damage is covered by the above ex-
«rations, and the shipowners are not liable fo r any portion of it. (Adm. Div.) The Cressmgton. 27 17. D em u rra ge—B ill o f la d in g S trik e — Rea
sonable tim e — Circum stances o f p o rt o f discharge.
— Goods consigned to the respondents were shipped on board a ship of the appellant under bins of lading which contained no stipulation as to the time within which the cargo was to be dis
charged. The ship duly arrived at her port of discharge, and the unloading was oommeneed, but before it was completed a strike took place among the dock labourers, and the completion of the unloading was delayed for a considerable time I t was admitted that during the con
tinuance of the strike it was impossible to obtain the necessary labour to complete the discharge of the ship: Held, that the respondents were only bound to discharge the ship m a reasonable time and therefore were not liable for the delay, under the circumstances which existed at the port.
/ u nf t ) Hick v. Rodocanachi Son Limited. 97 (and°on appeal to H. L.) Hick v. Raymond A Reid 233 18 Dem urrage-BiU of la d in g - “ A rriv a l ’ ’- B e r th
^ f o r c a r g o occupied. Where a b ill of lading for a grain cargo provided tha t the ship
‘‘ may commence discharging immediately on arrival,” and upon the ship’s arnyal the berth for grain cargoes was occupied, and the chip was not able to immediately commence discharging, bu t she was discharged as fast as she could be under the circumstances, the consignees were not liable to pay the shipowners damages for detention. (C t.ofA pp .) The Delano... 523 19 Demurrage— Charter-party Delay of steve- '°dore - L ia b ility for.-W h e re by a charter-party it was agreed that the ship should proceed to Leith and London and there load cargo wjthin a certain time and that a stevedore should be ap
pointed by the charterers ra London only, but employed and paid for by owners, and in oonse- auence of some of the Leith cargo shifting and being damaged by bad weather on the voyage
M ARITIME LA W CASES.
SUBJECTS OP CASES.
to London, i t was necessary at London to land and recondition the damaged cargo, and restow ^ the shifted cargo, and also neces
sary to shift some of the Leith cargo to enable the London cargo to be properly stowed, which matters together w ith some delay on the part of the London stevedore caused the ship to be detained, the charterers were held not liable either fo r demurrage arising either from the moving of the cargo or the stevedore’s delay, the stevedore being the servant of the owners, or for the expense of moving the cargo to enable the London cargo to be loaded, such expense being either the expense of storage or of work done by order of the master without the authority of the charterers. (Ct. of App.) H arris v Best Ryley, and Go...pag’e 272
20.
Demurrage—Charter-party—Discharge by dock company— “ As fast as she could deliver ” _Custom of port.—Where, in compliance w ith the terms of a charter-party, a vessel proceeded to a dock as ordered where she was to be discharged “ as fast as she could deliver,” but owing to the crowded state of the dock discharging—which, according to the custom of the port, was done solely by the dock company both for the shipowner and the charterer—was delayed several days, the chart
erers were held not liable for such delay, as the ship had in the circumstances existing been discharged as fast as she could deliver iAdm D iv.) Thé Jaederen... 260 21. Demurrage— Charter - pa rty— Discharge into
lighters — Strike of lightermen— Appeal._B y charter-party between plaintiffs and defendants i t was agreed that plaintiffs’ ship should load a cargo of tim ber and proceed to Sharpness and be there discharged in the customary manner and w ith the customary steamer despatch of the port ; Sundays and any time lost by strikes lock-outs, or combinations of workmen not to count as part of the discharging. Demurrage to be paid at an agreed rate for any detention of the vessel through default of merchants or charterers, and the usual custom of the wood trade to be observed in each port. A t Sharpness i t is customary to discharge timber into lighters and convey it by canal to Gloucester. Owing to a strike in the port of Gloucester among the labourers who discharged the lighters there were no lighters obtainable when the vessel arrived at Sharpness. As soon as the strike ended the vessel discharged her cargo. In an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants in the County Court fo r demurrage the judge held that Sharpness was included in the port of Glouces
ter, and that after the strike ended, the defendants, w ith the exception of one day which they had not accounted for, had done all tha t could reasonably be expected of them in affecting the vessel’s discharge. He therefore gave judgment for one day s demurrage w ith costs. Held (affirming the decision of the County Court judge), that the discharge into lighters was the mode of discharge accepted by the parties, tha t the loss of time, beyond the one day, was caused by the strike w ithin the meaning of the charter-party, and tha t therefore the charterers were excused. Held also, that, as the Divisional Court has only an appellate jurisdiction, a cross-appeal by the defendants upon a question of fact involving an amount less than 50!. could not be entertained.
(Adm.) The Alne Holme... 344
22.
Demurrage—Charter-party— Discharging—Selection of berth by charterer— Strike.— By a charter-party i t was agreed that a vessel should proceed “ to London either to the Pool, Regent’s
Canal, Victoria Docks, Derricks, or Beckton,” as ordered by the charterers, eighty-four hours being allowed for loading and discharging the cargo, “ strikes of workmen at the port of load
ing or discharging being excepted.” The charterers ordered the vessel to proceed to the Regent’s Canal. A fte r the vessel le ft the port of loading a strike of workmen commenced at the Kegent s Canal, and the charterers knowing of the strike could have ordered tho vessel at Graves- end to proceed to one of the other places named, but did not do so. The vessel proceeded to the Regent’s Canal, and, owing to the strike the charterers oould not take delivery of the cargo, there, though they could have done so at any of the other named places. The lay days were exceeded, and the shipowner claimed demurrage, Held (affirming the judgment of Pollock, B.)’
tha t there being no lim it in the charter-party to the charterer’s rig ht to select one of the named places, they could insist on her going to a place where she m ight be delayed by a strike, and that they were protected by the exception as to
“ strikes of workmen ; ” and were not liable fo r the delay of the vessel. (Ct. of App.) Bulman V. Fenwick ...pope 388 23. Demurrage Charter-party— Discharge by port
officials “ As fast as can deliver ” — Custom of p o r t— By a charter-party a vessel was to proceed to H, w ith a cargo of oranges “ to be discharged at usual fr u it berth as fast as steamer can de
liver as customary, and where ordered by char
terers.” When the vessel arrived at H. the fr u it warehouses were fu ll, and neither of the usual fr u it berths was available u n til after the expiration of four days. The warehouses on the quay, as well as the appliances for unloading there, were under tho control of Government officials,who regulated the unloading of the vessels, and determined the quay at which a vessel should be moored : Held, that the obligation o f the charterer to unload did not commence u n til the vessel was berthed at a usual fr u it berth, that the words “ as customary ” meant tha t the discharge must be as fast as the custom of the port would allow, and th a t the charterer was not liable to pay for the demurrage which was oc
casioned by the custom of the port. (Ct. of App., reversing Charles, J.) Good & Co. v. Isaacs 212 2t. Demurrage — Charter-party— Exceptions— Re
straints of princes—P olitica l disturbances or im pediments—Delay in shipment—Export duties.—
The defendants chartered the plaintiffs’ vessel to proceed to Iquique, in Chili, and there to load for the United Kingdom a cargo of 3000 tons of nitrate of soda at the rate of 200 tons per working lay day, and after provisions as to the lay days came the usual clause mutually excepting re
straints of princes and rulers, political dis
turbances or impediments during the said voyage.
A t the tria l of the action the learned judge found as a fact that the ordinary and recognised mode of loading nitrate at Iquique was to send the re
quired amount of nitrate down by railway from the mines direct to the ship at the quay when she was ready for loading. When the ship arrived at Iquique considerable delay was caused in the loading by reason of a civil war having broken out and the mines and the railway being for a time in the possession of the troops, so tha t no
nitrate could be sent down by railway to the ship. She was also further delayed by putting into another Chilian port for coal, where the- authorities then in power demanded export duties already paid atlquique. In an action for demurrage ::
Held, that the delay in both cases was within the
