T H IS P H O T O G R A P H IC R E P R IN T E D IT IO N
IS P U B L IS H E D BY
D E N N IS 8c C O ., IN C . (P u b lis h e rs ), B u ffa lo , N . Y ., U . S. A . B U T T E R W O R T H 8c C O . (P u b lis h e rs ) L T D ., L o n d o n , E n g la n d
R e p rin te d by p h o to lith o in the U .S .A . by C u s h in g -M a llo y , In c ., o f A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig a n
R E P O R T S
OF CASES RELATING TO
M A R I T I M E L A W ;
CONTAINING A L L TH E
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF LA W AND EQUITY
IN
®fj t ÏÜngîiDm,
AND SELECTIONS FROM THE MORE IMPORTANT DECISIONS
CJje Colrnms aaïr ttje ^EttiRïr States.
E D IT E D BY
The Late J. P. ASPINALL, Q.C., and BUTLER ASPINALL, Q.C.
YOL. V III.,
H e ir Series, fro m 1 8 9 5 to 1 8 9 9 .
(YOL. X I . , 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 9 0 0 .
L O N D O N
P R I N T E D B Y H O R A C E C O X , W IN D S O R H O U S E , B R E A M ’ S B U I L D I N G S , E .C .
C H W
s Q A
INDEX
T O
T g - A iw r T n R OŒP THE C J L S I E S
R EP O R TE D IN T H IS V O L U M E .
Acton v. The Castle M a il Packets Company L im ite d ... -... Pa?e 73 Adam v. The B ritis h and F oreign Steamship
Co. L im ite d ... 420
Aktieselskab H elios v. Ekm an and Co... 244
A lb is , The... ... 92
A lta ir , The ... 224
A nglo-A rgentine L iv e Stock and ^ Produce Agency v. Tem perley Steam S hipping Com- pany ... 395
A rb itra tio n between Goodbody and Co. and B a lfo u r, W illiam son, and Co., B e an ... o03 A rb itra tio n between Messrs. R ichardson and Co. and Samuel and Co., Be an... 330
A rb itra tio n between Salomon and Co. and Naudszus and another, Be an... 599
A rn o , T h e ... 3
A sfa r and Co. v. B lu n d e ll and o th e rs... 40, 106 A tto rn e y General, The, a t the relation of Moore and others v. W rig h t ... 329
Baerselman v. B a ile y and o th e rs ... 4
Ballantyne and Co. v. M ackin n o n ... ... 173
B angor Castle, T he... 156
B arcore, The... 439
Barraclough and others v. B row n and others... 422> 434> 299 Bellam y and Co. (resps.) v. Lunn and Co. (apps.) 348 Bennetts and Co. v. M T lw ra ith and Co... 176
Bensaude and others t>. The Thames and Mersey M arine Insurance Company 179, 204, 315 Ben-well Tower, The ...43
B lairm ore S a ilin g Ship Company v. M acredie 429 Bourgogne, L a...459, 462, 550 Brankelow Steamship Company v. Canton Insurance Office ... 563
B ritis h and Foreign M arine Insurance Company v. Sturge ... 393
B row n and another v. Law ... 230
B ru n e i, The . . . ... 477
B u rlin g to n , T h e... 10, 33 B u rm a , T h e... 547, 549 C affin v. A ld rid g e ... 233
Cahn and another v. P o ckett’s B ris to l Channel Steam Packet Company ... 415, 516 Cambrian, T h e ...P a9e 263 C arinthia, The... 333
Carlotta, T h e ... 544
C arlton Steamship Company v. Castle M a il Packets Company...325, 402 Cawdor, T h e ... 473, 007 Chandler v. B lo g g ... 349
Charlton, T h e ... 29
China Traders Insurance Company L im ite d v. R oyal Exchange Assurance C orporation ... 409
Chioggia, The ... 332
Chippendale and others v. H o lt... 78
C ity of Agra, T h e ... 457
C ity of Calcutta, The... 442
C ity o f Borne, The... 542n C larke v. L o rd D u nraven... 499
Clymene, The ... 237
Columbus, The... 433
Compagnie Générale Transatlantique v. Law and Co. ; L a Bourgogne... 550
Constantine and Co. rW a rd e n and Sons... 100
Copernicus, The ... 433, 499 Cory and others v. Owners o f the Steamship Mecca ... 269
C otton v. Yogan and Co... 93
Crathie, The... 239
C rocker and another v. Sturge and another ... 208
C urrie v. M c K n ig h t ... 493
D a rt, T h e ... 434
Diederichsen v. Farquharson and Co... 333
D . Lohne on behalf of him self and others v. The M ayor, Alderm en, and Burgesses o f the C ity of Preston ; The Y d u n ... 551
D obell and Co. v. Green and Co... 473
D obell and Co. v. The Steamship Rossmore Company L im ite d ... Dunbeth, The ... Edwards v. Steel, Young, and Co... 281, 323 Elgood v. H a rris and another ... 206
Emerald, The ... ' ' 4^3 Emerald, The ...493“
Eng ineer, T h e ... Eyre, Evans, and Co. v.W atsons... 139
IT
MARITIME LAW CASES.
NAMES OP CASES.
Faederlandet, The ...page 1 F ie ld Steamship Company v. B u rr ... 384, 529 Forest Steamship Company L im ite d v. The
Ib e ria n Iro n Ore Company L im ite d ... 438
F racis, Tim es, and Co. v. The Sea Insurance Company ... 418
Francis v. B oulton ... 79
Fulham , T h e ... 425, 559 Furness and others v. Forwood Bros, and Co. 298 Gemma, The ... 585
Germanic, The... 110
Glanystwyth, The ... 513
Glengyle, The ... 341, 433 Glenochil, The... 218
Goodbody and Co. and B a lfo u r, W illiam son, and C o.; Re an A rb itra tio n between ... 503
Greta Holme, The ...138, 317 Haabet, The... 005
H ay v. C orporation o f the T rin ity House ... 77
Helvetia, The ...264n Henderson B ro th e rs v. Shankland and Co... 136
Hereward, The ... 22
H ill v. S cott ... 40> 109 Home M arine Insurance Company v. S m ith 386, 408 Im p e ria l Japanese Government v. P. and 0 . Steam N avigation C om pany... 50
Inchmaree, The ... 486
Iredale v. China Traders Insurance Company 580 Is is Steamship Company L im ite d v. B ahr, Behrend, Boss, and others... 569
Jacob Christensen, T h e ... 21
Janet Court, The ... 223
John O’Scott, The ... 235
Hate, The... 539
K n ig h t o f St. Michael, The ... 360
L ittle v. Stevenson and Co... 162
L ive rp o o l B ra z il, and B iv e r P late Steam JN avigation Company«. B enjam in Holm es 153,166 L o rd Bangor, The ... 217
Low er R hine and W urtem berg "insurance Association v. S edgw ick... 330 4^0 M adras, The... M anchester T ru st L im ite d v. Furness W ith v and Co... ’ Mannheim, The ... M a o ri K in g , The... Maréchal Suchet, The... Mariposa, T h e ... M ayor, Alderm en, and Burgesses o f the C ity o f B ris to l v. Owners o f the Steamship Gian- m ire ... M ayor o f Preston v. B iom stad and o th e rs ... M cC all and Co. L im ite d v. H oulder and Co. Mecca, The ... Mediana, The ... 397 57 210 65 158 159 477 427 252 266 493 Mersey Docks and H arbour Board o. Cunard Steamship Company ...pa ge 353 Mersey Docks and H arbour Board v. H unter, C raig, and Co...’ 489
M erthyr, The ... 475
Metropolis, The ... 533
M ichiels v. The B ritis h and Foreign Steamship Company ... ...,... 420
M inna C raig Steamship Company L im ite d and James L a in g v. The Chartered M ercantile B ank o f In d ia ... 184 241 Monsen v. M acfarlane and others... 93
M ontgom ery v. Foy, M organ, and Co... 36
Moore and others v. W rig h t; The A ttorney- General at the re la tio n of ... 320
Morgengry, The ... 594
M o rris (app.) v. Howden (resp.) ... 249
Neman, Dale, and Co. and others v. Lam port and H o lt ... r 73 Nobel’s Explosives Company L im ite d v. Jenkins and Co... 431
v - Live rp o o l S a ilin g Shipowners M utual P rotection and Inde m n ity Associa tio n L im ite d ... 424^ 444 O’N e il v. A rm stro n g and others ... 8 63 Oporto, The ... 213
Owners, M aster, and Crew o f the L ig h ts h ip Comet v. Owners o f the Steamship Mediana 493 Owners o f Cargo on Steamship M a o ri K in q v. Hughes and another ... ' 35
Owners o f Cargo on the W aikato v. The New Zealand S hipping Company ...354 442 Owners o f the Normandie v. Owners o f the Steamship P e k in ... 337
P. and O. Steam N avigation Company v. Tsune, K rjim a , and others 93 Pacific, The ... 100
P aris, The Parkdale, The Pekin, The Peterson v. Freebody P h illip s v. The Owners o f the Ruby . . . . Steamship Pongola, The ... P o tte r and Co. v. B u rre ll and Co. Princess Clementine, The P rin s H endrik, The P urvis v. The S tra its o f Dover Company ... Steamship Queensland N ational B ank v. The P ami O Company ... Ratata, The ... ... ... 236 427 R ayner v. B ederiaktiebolaget Condor ... 43
Red Sea, The ... " 492 Reg. v. Lynch and Jones ... 363
Reg. v. Stew art ... ' 534
Reynolds and Co. v. Tom linson and Co...150
Rhym ney Steamship Company L im ite d v. The Ib e ria n Iro n . Ore Company L im ite d ... 438
MARITIM E LAW CASES.
vNAMES OF CASES.
Richardson and Samuel and Co., Be an A rb i- tra tio n between ...page 330 Richm ond H ill Steamship Company v. The
C orporation o f the T rin ity H ouse... 146, 164 R ijnstroon, The ... 538 R ipon C ity, The ... 304, 391 R itchie (app.) v. Larsen (reap.) ... 501 Roche v. London and South-W estern R ailw ay
Company ... 588 Roddick v. The Inde m n ity M utual M arine
Insurance Company L im ite d ... 24 R oth and Co. v. Taysen, Townsend, and Co. and
G rant and Co... 120 Rowlands (app.) v. M ille r (resp.) ... 508 Ruabon Steamship Company L im ite d v. The
London Assurance ... 346, 369 Ruby, T h e ... 389, 421 R utland, The... 168, 270 Rutland, The ... 497n R ’jys and others v. R oyal Exchange Assurance
Company ... 294 S ailing Ship B lairm ore Co. v. M acredie... 429 Salomon and Co. and Naudszus, A rb itra tio n
between... 599 Sandford v. S te w a rt; The B u b y ... 389, 421 S a ta n ita , The ... 190 Saxon Steamship Company L im ite d v. U nion
Steamship Company L im ite d ... 449, 574 Sea Insurance Company v. B lo g g ... 412 Shamrock Steamship Company v. Storey and Shelbourne v. The Law Investm ent and In
surance Corporation L im ite d ... 445 S later and others v. Owners o f the Steamship
G la n y s tw y th... 513 an^ Gthers v. U n ite d K ingdom M arine M u tu a l Insurance Association ...255, 293 m ith and Sons v. W ils o n ... 197 Snarlc, The ... 483 Solway P rin c e , The ... 128 Stella, The... 588, 605 Steyart v. The B ritis h and Foreign Steamship
Company L im ite d ... 420 S tra th g a rry , The... 19 Swyny «.The N orth-E astern R ailw ay Company 132 I'atham , Bromage, and Co. v. B u rr... 401
aylor v. B u rg e r and another ... 364
Theodora, The ... page 259 Thrunscoe, The ... 313 Tonnelier v. S m ith and others ... 327 T rin d e r, Anderson, and Co. v. The N o rth
Queensland Insurance Company L im ite d 300, 373 T rin d e r, Anderson, and Co. v. Thames and
M ersey M arine Insurance Company ... 373 T rin d e r, Anderson, and Co. v. W eston Crocker
and Co... 373 Tyser and others v. The Shipowners’ S yndi
cate (Re-assured) and others... 81 U nion M arine Insurance Company v. B o rw ick 71 U nion Steamship Company L im ite d v. D avis
and Sons L im ite d ... 449, 574 U niverso Insurance Company o f M ila n v. The
M erchants’ M arine Insurance C om pany... 279 Vortigern, The... 523 Waikato, The ... 351, 442 Warsaw, The ... 399 W avertree S a ilin g Ship Company v. Love... 276 W e ir and Co. v. G irv in R oper and Co... 470 W e lls and another v. Gas F lo a t W h itto n
No. 2 ... 85,1 1 0 ,2 7 2 Westburn, The... 130 W estport Coal Company v. M cP hail ... 378 W h ite v. T u rn b u ll, M a rtin , and Co... 406 W hitton, T h e ...85, 110, 272 W instanley, The ...134, 170 W oodside and Co. v. Globe M arine Insurance
Company L im ite d ... H ° Tseboot v. The B ritis h and Foreign Steamship
Company L im ite d ...
Ydun, The ...
420 551 E B B A T A E T C O B B IG E N D A .
Page
123. Column 1, line 28, fo r “ p la in tiffs ” read
“ defendants.”
123. Column 2, lin e 70, fo r “ 130 ” read “ 513.”
124. Column 1, lin e 40, fo r “ no property was saved,”
read “ and the vessel was afterwards saved by other salvors.”
222. Column 2, lin e 34, fo r “ 319 ” read “ 519.”
423. Column 2, line 36 fo r “ 35 ” read “ 257.”
484. Column 1, line 42, fo r “ 6 Asp.” read “ 5 Asp.”
S U B J E C T S OE C A S E S
ABAND O N M ENT.
See Carriage of Goods, No. 1—M arine Insurance, Nos.
15, 22, 33— Wrecks Removal, Nos. 1, 2.
ADVAN CE F R E IG H T.
See Charter P arty, No. 1.
ADVAN CE NO TE.
See Seamen, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4.
A IR E A N D CALDER N A V IG A TIO N ACT 1889.
See Wrecks Removal, No. 1.
ANCHOR LIG H T . See Collision, No. 18.
APPEAL.
See County Courts A dm iralty Jurisdiction, No. 1—
Practice, No. 8—Salvage, Nos. 4, 6.
A R B ITR A TIO N . See Salvage, Nos. 7, 14.
ARREST OF SHIP.
See Collision, No. 8—Mortgagor and Mortgagee, No. 2.
B A IL .
See Collision, Nos. 8, 10— Restraint No. 1.
BANKR UPTCY.
See Marine Insurance, No. 3.
BARR ATR Y.
See M arine Insurance, Nos. 4, 5.
B IL L OF LA D IN G .
See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 6, 14, 15, 16,17,19, 20, 21, 27, 28— C harter-party, No. 2—Foreign Judgment, No. 2—M arine Insurance, No. 18— Sale of Goods, Nos. 1, 3.
BO TH TO BLA M E . See Collision, No. 6.
BOTTOMRY.
1. M aritim e interest—Personal credit—Necessaries men.—A document pledging a ship contained a stip u la tio n th a t the money advanced upon i t fo r the repairs of the vessel in a foreign port should become due and payable if the vessel put in to a p o rt of refuge to repair, and also pledged the owner’s personal credit. There was no stipu
la tio n fo r the payment of m aritim e interest.
The holders p u t forw ard the document as a bottom ry bond having p rio rity over the claims of necessary men. Held th a t it was a good bot
tom ry bond. (Adm. D iv.) The Haabet... page 605 2. Marshalling of assets—Ship and freight—Neces
saries men.—W here there are tw o funds belonging to different persons, namely, the proceeds of ship and fre ig h t belonging to the shipowners, and the proceeds of cargo belonging to the cargo-owners, against both of which funds the holder of a bottom ry bond, on ship, fre ig h t, and cargo has obtained a judgm ent, the C ourt w ill not marshal the proceeds of ship, fre ig h t, and cargo in favour o f necessaries men who have obtained a judgm ent against ship and fre ig h t, notw ithstanding th a t the bottom ry bondholders would not be pre
judiced thereby. (Adm. D iv.) The Chioggia ... 352 BRISTO L C H A N N E L.
See Compulsory Pilotage, No. 1.
B U LLIO N . See Carriage of Goods, No. 2.
CAPTURE.
See M arine Insurance, No. 33.
CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
1. Abandonment—Dissolution of contract—Salvors
—Payment of freight.— I f a ship is abandoned by her m aster and crew during a voyage, and the cargo owner exercises his rig h t of treatin g the abandonment as a determ ination of the contract of affreightm ent before the a rriv a l of the ship and cargo at the po rt of discharge, the subse
quent recovery of the vessel by the shipowner from salvors at the p o rt of discharge w ill not revive the contract, and the owner of the cargo w ill be en titled to have it delivered to him w ith out payment of fre ig h t. (Ct. of App.) The Am o 5 2. B ullio n room— W arranty of fitness— Thieves—
W here bu llion was shipped under a b ill of lading upon a vessel which had a bu llion room, and the contract was entered in to w ith the knowledge and upon the footing th a t there was a bullion room fo r the safe carnage of bullion, i t was held (affirm ing the judgm ent of Mathew, J.), th a t there was an im plied w arranty th a t the bu llion room was so constructed as to be reasonably fit to resist thieves. (Ct. of App.) Queensland National Bank Lim itedv.P . and 0. Co. 338 3. Colliery guarantee — Lay Days— Demurrage—
Colliery working days—A charter-party provided th a t the ship was “ to proceed to a customary loading place in the Royal Dock, Grimsby, and there receive a fu ll cargo of coals, to be loaded as customary a t Grimsby as per co llie ry guarantee in fifteen colliery w orking days; demurrage to be
MARITIME LAW CASES.
YUSUBJECTS OF CASES.
a t the rate of 4d. per register ton per day.” By the collie ry guarantee, the co llie ry owners agreed w ith the charterers “ to load w ith coal in fifteen collie ry w orking days a fte r the said ship is w holly unballasted and ready in dock a t Grimsby to receive her entire cargo . . . Tim e not to commence before the 2nd Aug. Time to count from the day follow ing th a t on which notice of readiness is received . . . the said notice to be handed to office as soon as the ship is ready as above stipulated, and not before.” Notice of readiness was given by the shipowner to the charterers on the 3rd Sept. The ship, in her tu rn , could have loaded a t the customary loading place on the 17th Sept., but, owing to delay fo r which the charterers were responsible, she did not get there u n til the 10th O ct., and her loading was completed on the 13th Oct. Held (dissen- tiente K ay, L .J.), th a t the provisions of the collie ry guarantee as to loading were incorporated in to the cha rte r-p a rty; th a t the la y days com
menced on the day a fte r notice of readiness was given by the shipowner to the charterers; and th a t the charterers were, therefore, liable to pay demurrage after the expiration of fifteen co llie ry w orking days from th a t tim e. {C t. of App.) Monsen v. Macfarlane and others... page 93 4- Common carrier—M arine insurance—W here a
shipowner contracts to carry goods p a rtly by land and p a rtly by sea w ith ou t b ills of lading, his lia b ility as a common carrier to carry the goods at his ris k is not lim ite d by an arrangement w ith the good’s owner th a t he should keep the goods insured a t an agreed rate during the tra n sit.
(Ct. of App., affirm ing Lord Russell, C. J.) H ill v. Scott ... 46, 109
Custom— Timber cargo—Discharge—Merchant's
— A custom of a p o rt th a t, in the case of a cargo of long lengths of tim ber, i t is the duty of the shipowners to place the tim ber in barges brought alongside by the receivers of the cargo, 18 not inconsistent w ith a clause in a charter- pa rty th a t the cargo of tim ber should be “ taken from alongside the ship a t merchants’ ris k and expense,” and therefore there is an obligation on the shipowners to put the tim ber in to the barges.
(Ct. of App.) Aktieselskab Helios v. Ekman and C o... 244 6- Deck cargo—Damage — Merchant's risk— Goods
were shipped under a b ill of lading which con
tained the pro visio n: “ F reight and a ll other conditions as per charter-party.” The charter- pa rty provided th a t the vessel was to load a fu ll and complete cargo, “ deck cargo included, at merchants’ ris k , and proceed to London and deliver the same.” The goods were carried on deok, and were damaged on the voyage. Held (dissentiente R igby, L .J .), th a t the provision as to deck cargo being carried a t merchants’ ris k
^vas not incorporated in the b ill of lading. (Ct.
of App.) Diederichsen v. Farquharson and Co. 333 demise—Master and servant— Non-delivery of cargo—L ia b ility of shipowners.— A tim e charter- pa rty contained the provisions : “ The captain and crew, although paid by the owners, shall be the agents and servants of the charterers fo r a ll Purposes, whether of navigation or otherwise, under the charter. In signing b ills of lading i t 18 expressly agreed th a t the captain shall only do
®° as agent fo r the charterers; and the charterers hereby agree to indem nify the owners from a ll consequences or lia b ilitie s ( if any) th a t may arise
^om the captain signing b ills of lading, or in otherwise com plying w ith the same.” The ship
^as loaded w ith a cargo, and b ills of lading, in
*he usual form , were signed by the master, sub
je ct to the conditions of the charter-party, and a copy of the charter-party was handed to him . The charterers indorsed the b ills of lading to the p la in tiffs , b u t fraudulently induced the master to a lte r the destination of the ship, and to deliver the cargo to themselves. The p la in tiffs sued the owners of the ship fo r non-delivery of the cargo.
H eld, th a t the special clause in the charter-party did not exonerate the shipowners from lia b ility to the p la in tiffs , b u t th a t the p la in tiffs were entitled to tre a t the m aster as agent of the shipowners and to hold them responsible fo r the loss of the cargo. Held, also, th a t the reference to the charter-party in the b ills of lading only gavQ the p la in tiffs notice of such clauses as referred to the payment of fre ig h t and conditions respect
in g carriage of the goods, b u t not of the above special clause. (Ct. of App.) Manchester Trust Lim ited v. Furness W ithy and Co... page 57 8. Demurrage— Excepted perils— Duty to load.—A
charter-party (which excepted perils of the sea) provided th a t the shipowners should provide the charterers w ith five steamers to load a t a foreign po rt between August and December, a t times to be m utually arranged (which dates were a fte r
wards agreed upon), b u t “ as nearly as possible a steamer a m onth,” the charterers to present the cargo w ith in tw enty-four hours after notice th a t the vessel was ready to receive it . The steamers had lib e rty to tow and assist vessels in a ll situa
tions. In consequence of storm y weather the second vessel arrived at the foreign po rt over a fo rtn ig h t late, b u t the th ird vessel arrived punc
tu a lly . In consequence of there not being sufficient labour to load both vessels a t once, the th ird vessel had to w a it fo r her cargo u n til the second was loaded. Held, th a t the shipowners were en titled to damages fo r the detention of the th ird vessel. (C t. of App.) Potter and Co. v.
B urre ll and Co. ... 200 9. Demurrage— Lay days — Discharge of cargo —
Custom.—Where by a charty-party fo r the car
riage o f a cargo of poles and spars, i t was agreed th a t the ship should “ deliver the cargo w ith such despatch th a t unnecessary delay can be avoided and discharge overside in the riv e r or dock in to lighte rs or otherwise if required by the con
signees,” and the cargo was discharged in to lighters, and the la y days were exceeded because the consignees did not p u t enough men on the lighters to receive the poles and spars when they were brought over the ship’s side by the crew and placed w ith in reach of the men in the lighte rs, i t was held (affirm ing the judgm ent of Kennedy J.), th a t i t was not the duty of the shipowner to p u t men on the lighters to place the poles and spars in the bottom of the lighters, and th a t the consignees were liable to pay the demurrage.
(C t. of App.) Peterson v. Freebody... 55 10. Deviation— Liberty to call— Excepted perils.—
B y a charty-party the defendants’ steamship was to proceed to M arianople and there load a fu ll and complete cargo of wheat, and proceed there
w ith to a safe po rt in the U nited Kingdom, or on the Continent between Havre and Hamburg, as ordered at G ib ra lta r; and, in the event of frost and to avoid being frozen in , the master “ to be a t lib e rty to leave w ith pa rt cargo and to f ill up fo r steamer’s benefit at any open B lack Sea, Azof, or M editerranean port, fo r U nited Kingdom; Con
tin e n t, or Mediterranean ; but in case of leaving w ith pa rt cargo the steamer shall complete the voyage as if a fu ll cargo had been loaded.” To- avoid being frozen in the master le ft M arianople w ith a part cargo of wheat, shipped under a b ill of lading incorporating the conditions and excep—
MARITIME LAW CASES.
vrn
SUBJECTS OP CASES.
tions of the charter-party. A t Novorossisk he fille d up w ith linseed fo r delivery a t K in g ’s Lynn fo r steamer’s benefit, and then sailed fo r G ibraltar, where he received orders from the consignees of the wheat to proceed to Cardiff. Instead of proceeding to C ardiff the master took the ship to K in g s Lim n, and there discharged the linseed.
Between K in g ’s Lynn and C ardiff some of the wheat was damaged and some destroyed by fire.
In an action by the holders of the b ill of lading fo r the wheat against the owner of the vessel fo r breach of con tra ct: H eld, th a t the owners of the vessel were liable, as by going round to K in g ’s Lynn the vessel had deviated from her voyage under the contract of carriage, and they were not en titled to avail themselves of the excepted perils. (A dm .D iv.) The Dunbeth...page 284 11. Deviation — Liberty to call at any ports—
Excepted perils.— By a charter-party, which stated th a t the vessel was of a dead w eight capacity ef 125 tonB, it was agreed th a t the defendant’s ship should load a t E otherhithe fo r the p la in tiff “ a cargo or estimated quantity of 470 quarters of wheat in sacks, and (or) other la w fu l merchan
dise,” and should deliver the same a t Gosport on payment of fre ig h t a t “ one s h illin g per quarter o f 4961b. delivered.” The charter-party gave lib e rty to the ship to ca ll at any ports, and also contained the usual exception of sea perils. A t the rate mentioned, 470 quarters of wheat weigh about 102 tons. A t interm ediate ports on the voyage the vessel took in and afterwards dis
charged goods fo r another shipper. Afterwards, before a rriv in g a t Gosport, the vessel met w ith an accident arising from sea perils, whereby the p la in tiff’s wheat was damaged. Held (affirm ing the judgm ent of Lord Kussell, C.J.), tha t, upon the true construction of the charter-party, the ship was en titled to call a t interm ediate ports to take in and discharge goods fo r shippers other than the p la in tiff, and th a t consequently there had been no deviation, and the p la in tiff there
fore could not recover damages fo r the in ju ry to his wheat. (Ct. of App.) Caffim, v. Aldridge ... 233 12. Deviation— Liberty to tow— Salvage—Demur-
rage.—A charter-party provided th a t the ship
owners should provide five steamers to load cargo between August and December, at dates to be arranged, but “ as nearly as possible a steamer a m onth, the charterers to present the cargo w ith in tw enty-four hours a fte r notice th a t the vessel was ready to receive it. The steamers had lib e rty to tow and assist vessels in a ll situations.
One of the steamers on the way to the po rt of loading feU in w ith a ship in distress, and towed her to another po rt as a salvage service, and con
sequently arrived three weeks late. A n a rb i
tra to r found th a t th is delay did not frustrate the object of the adventure. H eld, th a t the salvage service was an allowable deviation under the charter-party, and therefore the charterers were bound to present cargo w ith in tw enty-four hours a fte r notice, and were liable fo r damages fo r the detention of the ship between the date she arrived and the date they commenced to load her. (Ct.
of App.) Potter and Co. v. B urre ll and Co... 200 13. D uty of charterer— Cargo — Demurrage. — A
charterer is not bound to have a cargo ready at a ll times and under a ll circumstances in order to take advantage of the po ssib ility of the ship ge tting an early loading berth out of her regular tu rn , and hence when a berth becomes accident
a lly vacant, so th a t the ship, i f the oargo was ready, could be loaded out of her tu rn , the charterer is not liable fo r damages fo r not having the cargo ready. (H . of L .) L ittle v. Stevenson 162
14. Excepted perils—Accidents of the seas—Damage to cargo— Closing of ventilators.—A cargo of maize was shipped on board a steamship to be carried across the A tla n tic under b ills of lading, excepting (inter alia) “ accidents of the seas.”’
The ship was f it to carry the cargo, which was properly stowed. D uring the voyage the ship encountered a storm of exceptional severity and duration, owing to which her ven tila to rs were necessarily closed, fo r a prolonged period, fo r the safety of the ship. As a result, the heat, generated in the usual course of the voyage of a steamship, was prevented from escaping and damaged the cargo. H eld, th a t the severity of the weather, was the direct cause of the damage to the cargo, th a t th is damage was therefore covered by the exception in the b ill of lading, and the shipowner was not liable therefor.
(Adm. D iv.) The Thrwnscoe ... page 313 15. Excepted perils—Master— Negligence of pa rt
owner. The exceptions in a b ill of lading, “ the neglect or default of p ilo t, master, or crew in the navigation of the ship,” protect a p a rt owner of tne snip, who is the master fo r the voyage men
tioned in the b ill of lading, even though the cargo be damaged by his negligence. (Ct. of App.) Westport Coal Co. v. M cP hail... 378 16. Excepted perils — Negligence of stevedore—
Ejus;-em generis.— Where goods were shipped under a b ill of lading, a clause of which provided th a t the shipowners should be in no way liable
“ fo r any act, negligence, default, or error in judgm ent, of the p ilo t, master, m ariners, or other servants of the shipowners in navigating the ship or otherwise,” and damage was caused to the goods by th e ir being negligently stowed by the stevedore employed by the shipowners, i t was: H eld th a t the clause exempted the shipowners from lia b ility fo r the damage caused to the goods, as the words “ or otherwise ” referred to m atters other than the ship’s navigation. (C t. o f App.) Baerselman v. Bailey... 4 17. Excepted perils — “ Restraint of rulers or
pnnces ” Contraband of war— Nearest safe port.
— Under a b ill of lading the p la in tiffs shipped on board the defendants’ steamer a qu a n tity of ex
plosives to be carried from London to Yokohama, aud to be delivered at Yokohama, or “ so near thereto as the vessel may safely get.” The b ill of lading contained the exception of “ re stra in t of rulers, princes, or people,” and a clause that,
“ i f the entering of or discharging in the port shall be considered by the master unsafe by reason of war or disturbances, the m aster may land the goods a t the nearest safe and convenient p o rt.” The vessel, which had other goods on board belonging to other owners, arrived in the course of her voyage a t Hong Kong when war had been declared between China and Japan, and having explosives on board, which were adm itted to be contraband of war, she was compelled to anchor and fly a red flag, thereby announcing th a t she had explosives on board, a fa c t which was generally known. There were in the port several Chinese cruisers, and w ith in sight were two Chinese war-vessels, and the master, in the well-founded be lie f th a t, if he proceeded w ith the explosives on board, the vessel would be stopped and the explosives confiscated, landed the ex- plosives at Hong Kong, and proceeded on his voyage to Yokohama, where he arrived safely.
In an aotion by the p la in tiffs to recover the ex
penses of the storage and subsequent forw arding of th e ir goods to Yokohama : Held (1) th a t the well-founded fear of seizure was, under the circumstances, a “ re stra in t of rulers or
MARITIME LAW CASES.
I XSUBJECTS OF CASES.
princes,” w ith in the meaning of the exception;
(2) tha t, under the clause as to the entering of or discharging in the p o rt of destination, the master was ju stifie d in landing the goods at Hong Kong, which, owing to the danger of continuing the voyage w ith the explosives on board, was the nearest safe and convenient p o rt; ” and (3) tha t, apart from the b ill of lading, the action of the master in so landing the explosives at Hong Kong was a proper discharge of the general duty imposed on him to take reasonable care of the goods intrusted to him ; and th a t upon each of these grounds the defendants were en titled to judgm ent. (M athew, J.) Nobel’s Explosives Co. Lim ited v. Jenkins and Co... ...page 181 18. Freight— Destruction of cargo.— To disen title
a shipowner to fre ig h t fo r the carriage of goods i t is not necessary th a t they should be to ta lly destroyed during the voyage. The destruction of th e ir merchantable character is enough. (C t. of App. affirm ing. (Q. B. D iv.) Asfar and Co.
v. Blundell and others... ... ...40, 106 19. Freight—Inherent vice—Damage to cargo—
Excepted perils.— A charter-party incorporated m a b ill of lading provided (in te r alia) as follow s:
“ F reight payable : one-third in cash on a rriva l, and the rem aining tw o-thirds on rig h t delivery of cargo, less value of cargo short delivered or damaged if any not covered by the preceding act
° f God clause, &c.” The act of God clause con
tained the usual exceptions. The holders of the b ill of lading and consignees of the cargo, which was one of deals, claimed to deduct from the fre ig h t the value o f some of the cargo which was
* delivered damaged.” The damage was due to inherent vice and not to any cause fo r which the shipowner was responsible. Held, th a t the consignees were liable to pay the whole of the freig ht, as the words “ cargo damaged ” meant damage due to causes fo r which the shipowner was responsible. (Adm. D iv.) Eyre, Evans, and Company v. Watsons; The Bar core... 189 20. Harter Act—“ Management of the vessel ” —
Negligence of crew.— Goods were shipped under a b ill of lading, which, by incorporating the H arter A ct, exempted the shipowners from lia b ility fo r
“ damage or loss resulting from fa u lt or errors in navigation, or in the management of the vessel.”
Soon after the a rriv a l of the vessel at the port of discharge, one of the water ballast tanks was fille d in order to stiffe n the ship, b u t owing to an in ju ry which had occurred to a sounding pipe on the voyage, and which, but fo r the negligence of those on board, could have been ascertained, water was le t in to the cargo space and damaged the goods. Held, th a t the act which resulted in the damage to the cargo was an error in the management of the vessel w ith in the words of the b ill of lading, and th a t there was nothing to lim it the word “ management” to the period when the vessel was actually at sea. (Adm. D iv.)
■The Olenochil... 218
^1 . Harter Act — Seaworthiness — Negligence of carpenter.—Goods were shipped under a b ill of lading which incorporated an A ct of Congress of Feb. 13, 1893, c. 105, by which the shipowners were exempted from lia b ility fo r damage to the goods arising from fau lts or errors in navigation,
° r in the management of the ship, provided th a t fiue diligence had been exercised by the owners
«o make the ship in a ll respects seaworthy.
Damage was caused to the goods during the voyage through the unseaworthiness of the vessel. The unseaworthiness of the vessel was fiue to the negligence of the carpenter employed by the shipowners to see th a t the vessel started
on her voyage in a seaworthy condition. Held, th a t the shipowners, although they had employed a fit and proper carpenter, were not relieved by the b ill of lading from lia b ility fo r the damage to the goods, as they, in order to escape lia b ility m ust show th a t the persons employed by them to make the ship seaworthy had exercised due diligence. (Ct. of App.) Dobell and Co. v.
The Steamship Rossmore Co. L im ite d ... ....page 33 22. Lim itatio n of lia b ility — Gold and jewellery—
Theft.— Sect. 502 of the Merchant Shipping A ct 1894, which provides th a t the owner of a B ritis h seagoing ship shall not be liable fo r the loss by robbery w ith ou t his actual fa u lt, of any gold, silver, jewellery, &c., taken on board his ship, the true nature and value of which have not been declared, applies whether the robbery be com
m itted by a passenger, or by one of his servants.
(Lord Russell, C.J.) Acton v. The Castle M a il Packets Co. Lim ited ... 73 23. Manchester Ship Canal— Port of Manchester—
Lim its of port.—A lthough by sect. 3 of the Manchester Ship Canal A ct 1885, the po rt of Manchester is defined to include the whole of the Manchester Ship Canal above Eastham Locks, and the form er po rt of Runcorn is abolished, nevertheless, where i t was proved th a t in com
m ercial m atters it was customary fo r the words
“ P ort of Manchester ” to be used as referring only to Manchester and the waters adjacent thereto, and to tre a t Runcorn Lay-bye, which is on the Manchester Ship Canal, b u t about tw enty- fo u r miles from Manchester, as a separate port, it was held, th a t in in te rpre ting shipping docu
ments these words were to be read in the com
m ercial sense, and not in th e ir legal significance.
(Q. B. D iv.) Re A n A rbitra tion between Good- body and Co. and Balfour Williamson and Co.... 503 24. Manchester Ship Canal—Port of Manchester—
Safe port— Sale of goods.— B., W ., and Co. sold a cargo of grain by the ship V. to G. and Co., delivery to be given “ a t any safe po rt in the U nited Kingdom .” When the b ills of lading arrived it was found th a t by them —as by the charter-party— delivery was to be given “ at any safe port in the U nited Kingdom (Manchester excepted).” G. and Co. notified B., W ., and Co.
th a t they would not accept the documents w ith th is variance. B ., W ., and Co. th«n, by arrange
ment w ith the owner of the F , had the words
“ Manchester excepted ” erased. A t the proper tim e the documents were presented to G. and Co. so altered, when they refused to accept them, on the ground th a t they had been altered w ithout th e ir consent or the consent of the master of the V. On the dispute being referred to arb itratio n, the arbitrators found th a t fo r a vessel of the F *s tonnage the Manchester Ship Canal above bridges was not a safe p o rt; th a t Runcorn Lay-bye, the la st dock below bridges, was a safe p o rt; th a t under a charter-party to proceed to a safe port (Manchester excepted) the ship could be com
pelled to go to Runcorn Lay-bye, and th a t, though the po rt of Manchester was defined by sect 3 of the Manchester Ship Canal 1885 as including the whole ship canal, and the po rt of Runcorn was abolished as a separate port, yet the weight of evidence was th a t in commercial m atters “ P ort o f M anchester” was used as meaning Manchester its e lf and the waters adjacent thereto, and Runcorn Lay-bye was treated as a separate port. Held, on these find
ings, “ Manchester excepted ” here meant Manchester and the adjacent waters only excepted ; th a t, so read, Manchester was not a safe port fo r the F., and th a t accordingly its
X
M ARITIME LAW CASES.
SUBJECTS OF CASES.
insertion in the b ills of lading was an im m aterial variatio n in the contract of sale, and its erasure was also im m a te ria l; and th a t therefore G. and Co. were bound to accept the documents.
(Q. B. D iv.) Re An A rbitration between Goodbody and Co. and Balfour, Williamson, and Co. ...page 503 25. Safe Port— Oloucestet— Lightening cargo—
Custom.—A charter pa rty provided th a t a vessel was to call fo r orders to discharge at a “ safe po rt, and th a t the discharge was to be given
” according to the customs of the port of dis
charge,” and to be a ll at one p o rt,” and “ in a dock in which the-vessel can at once safely enter and lie afloat at a ll tim es.” Under the term s of th is charter-party, a vessel w ith a grain cargo was ordered by the charterers to Gloucester. The master proceeded to th a t place, b u t on a rriv in g a t Sharpness, which is w ith in the po rt of Gloucester fo r certain p u r
poses, he found th a t the vessel drew too much water to proceed up the canal to Gloucester w ith his whole cargo on board, and th a t he would have to discharge nearly one-half of his cargo to on able him to proceed up to Gloucester. He refused to lighten and go up to Gloucester w ith the remainder of his cargo, but delivered the whole cargo at Sharpness. In an action by the consignees against the shipowners for not pro
ceeding up to Gloucester and there delivering the cargo as ordered : Held, th a t a “ safe p o rt” means a po rt to which a vessel can safely get w ith a ll her cargo on board;
and th a t, as the vessel w ith a ll her cargo on board could not get up to Gloucester, Glou
cester was not a “ safe po rt ” w ith in the charter-party, and th a t the master was ju stified in delivering the whole of the cargo at Sharpness.
Held, also, th a t evidence of a custom th a t vessels w ith grain cargoes which were of too heavy a burthen to go up the canal to Gloucester should lighten at Sharpness and then go up w ith the remainder of the cargo to Gloucester basin, was not admissible against the express words of the charter-party th a t the vessel was to be ordered to a safe port. (Q. B. I ) .) Reynolds and Co. v. Tomlinson and Co... 150 26. Seaworthiness — Chartered voyage — Coal.—
Where a chartered voyage is necessarily divided in to stages fo r coaling purposes, the ship is bound to have on board a t the commencement of each stage sufficient coal fo r th a t stage, and i f the ship starts w ith less she is unseaworthy. (C t. of App.) The Vortigern ... 523 27. Seaworthiness— Latent and patent defects—
Damage to cargo.—Where by a b ill of lading the shipowner was exempted from lia b ility fo r loss or damage to the cargo arising from “ defects la te n t on beginning voyage or otherwise,” it was held, affirm ing the judgm ent of Bigham, J., th a t th is exception did not cover defects patent on beginning the voyage. (Ct. of App.) Owners of Wool Cargo on Steamship Waikato v. New Zealand Shipping Company Lim ited ... 442 28. W arranty of fitness—Refrigerating machinery—
Excepted perils.—Where hard-frozen meat was shipped on board a vessel provided w ith refrigera
tin g machinery, fo r carriage from A ustra lia to London, under a “ refrig era to r b ill of la din g” by which the shipowner agreed to deliver the hard- frozen meat in good order and condition at London, subject to certain exceptions as to fa ilu re , Ac., of machinery, and the meat was damaged by the breakdown of the machinery during the voyage, i t was held, th a t, in the absence of anything to the contrary contained in the b ill of lading, there waB im plied in it an abso
lu te w arranty by the shipowner th a t the refrige
ra tin g machinery in the ship was fit, at the tim e of shipment, to preserve the hard-frozen meat under the ordinary circumstances of an ordinary voyage from A ustra lia to London, and th a t the exceptions in the b ill of lading applied only to m atters happening during the voyage and not to the original fitness of the machinery. (C t. of App.) Owners of cargo on board the s.s. Maori King v. Hughes and another ... page 65
See Charter-Party.
CAR R IAG E OF PASSENGERS.
Ticket conditions—Loss of luggage—L ia b ility of shipowner.— A passenger from Durban to London by the defendants’ ship received a tic k e t, which purported to be a receipt fo r the passage-money.
On the m argin of the tic k e t were the words Issued subject to the furthe r conditions printed on the back hereof,” and on the face of the tic k e t there was w ritte n and printed m atter which the passenger saw but did not read. There was also in is clause, “ The owners do not hold themselves responsible fo r any loss, damage, or detention of Inggage under any circumstances,” and on the back there was an indorsement, “ Conditions and Regulations,” one of which was th a t “ it is hereby agreed by the person holding th is tic k e t th a t the owners w ill not be liable in any way fo r the Inggage of possengers unless the passenger choose to pay Is. per cubic foot fo r luggage p u t under the owners’ charge.” A box, pa rt of the passenger’s luggage, containing money, jew ellery, and papers, was during the voyage Btolen, it was supposed by one of the crew. Held, th a t the term s and conditions on the tic k e t constituted the term s of the contract between the passenger and the shipowners : th a t the passenger ought to have known th a t there were conditions, and th a t he had, under the circumstances, reasonable notice of the conditions, and was bound by them, although he had not read the same, and th a t he could not recover from the shipowners. (Lord Russell, C.J.) Acton v. The Castle M a il Packets Company L im ite d ... 73
CH ARTER-PARTY.
1. Advance Freight— Ship lost or not lost—Destruc
tion of cargo.—A charter-party provided th a t the ship should load a fu ll and complete cargo of such a nature as would load the vessel to her water marks, and th a t the fre ig h t, a t the specified rate per ton on the quantity delivered to the con
signees, should be due and paid as to “ two- th ird s in cash three days a fte r sailing from Tyne, ship lost or not lo st, and balance on unload
in g and rig h t delivery o f cargo,” and the charter-party contained this stipulation, th a t “ in the event of charterers not loading the vessel to her m arks, the fre ig h t shall be paid on the basis of 4350 tons which the owners guarantee to be vessel’s capacity of cargo fo r the voyage.” A portion of the cargo put on board had been destroyed by fire— a p e ril m utually excepted—
before the sailing o f the ship, and other cargo was loaded which, w ith the quantity destroyed, did not b rin g the to ta l cargo carried up to the basis o f the 4350 tons. Held, th a t the charterers were not bound to pay the tw o-thirds advance fre ig h t on the portion of the cargo destroyed by the fire, but th a t they were bound to pay on the basis of the 4350 tons less the number of tons destroyed, although the ship did not actually carry so much.
(Lo rd Russell, C.J., since affirmed by Ct. of App.) Weir and Co. v. Q irvin, Roper, and Co.... 47(1
MAKITIME LAW CASES.
XISUBJECTS OF CASES.
2. Breach of charter-party — B ills of lading—
Master's duty — Nominal damages. — Where a charter-party contained a clause th a t “ the captain shall sign charterer’s b ills of lading as presented, w ith o u t qualification except by adding weight unknown, w ith in tw enty-four hours a fte r being loaded, or pay 101. fo r every day’s delay, as and fo r liquidated damages, u n til the ship is to ta lly lost or the cargo delivered,” i t was held th a t the clause imposed a penalty only, and did not confer a rig h t to liquidated damages fo r the re
fusal of the captain to sign bills of lading, and tha t, as the charterer had in fa ct suffered no damage by such refusal, he was en titled to nom inal damages only. (Q. B. D iv.) Rayner v.
Rederiaktiebolaget Condor... page 43 3. Breach of charter-party — Cargo — Merchants'
expense.— Where under a charter party requiring the cargo to be “ loaded ex cars from alongside steamer a t ship’s expense,” and to be “ brought alongside the ship at merchant’s expense,” the cargo was brought in cars upon ra ils , the nearest end of which was seventy feet from the ship, a ll the cars, except th a t a t the end, being at greater distance from the ship, i t was held (affirm ing the judgm ent of Bruce, J.), th a t the cargo was not brought alongside the ship when it was in the cars. (Ct. of App.) Isis Steamship Co.
Lim ited v. Bahr, Behrend, Ross, and others... 569 Breach of charter-party—F u ll and complete cargo
—“ Wet wood-pulp.” —W here by a charter-party made between the p la in tiffs and the defendants i t was agreed th a t the defendants should load a fu ll and complete cargo of “ wet wood-pulp ” on the p la in tiffs ’ steamer, paying fre ig h t at a rate per ton, the cargo to be loaded in w inter at a po rt where severe frosts occur, and the cargo was delivered to be loaded in a frozen condition, in consequence of which it was possible to stow only a much sm aller quantity than if i t had been un
frozen, i t was held th a t the defendants had loaded a fu ll and complete cargo, and had not broken th e ir contract. (C t. of App.) Isis Steam
ship Co. Lim ited v. Bahr, Behrend, Boss, and others 569 5* Colliery guarantee—Demurrage—Port of load-
ing.—B y a charter-party between the p la in tiffs and defendants, i t was provided th a t the plain
tiffs ’ vessel should proceed to Grimsby and there load a cargo of coal, in the usual manner accord
ing to the custom of the place, from such colliery as the charterers m ight d ire c t; and th a t the loading tim e should be th irty -s ix running hours u on terms of usual colliery guarantee.’ The vessel arrived a t the usual loading dock at Grim sby, and was ready to load on the 19th July.
Owing to the coal strike in South Wales a very large number of vessels were w aiting to load coal at Grimsby, and the p la in tiffs ’ vessel was unable get a berth a t a coal tip u n til the 20th July, when she was loaded w ith in th irty -s ix hours.
The coal was loaded from collieries at which no
“ collie ry guarantee ” was in use. Held (affirm ing the judgm ent of Bigham, J.), th a t the defendants were not liable to pay demurrage, because there was a “ usual collie ry guarantee ’ ’ m use at Grim sby, by which the tim e fo r loading did not commence unt il the vessel came under a coal tip . (Ct. of App.) Shamrock Steamship Oo. v. Storey and Co... 590 0. Colliery guarantee — Demurrage — Strike —
Colliery working days.—B y a charter-party the charterers agree to load a ship in twelve w orking days, “ demurrage as per co llie ry guarantee.”
The collie ry guarantee contained clauses except
in g from the la y days, Sundays, holidays, and tim e lost through strikes, and providing th a t a ll
holidays and fu ll-d a y stoppages should be deemed to commence at 5 p.m. on the w orking day preceding, and to end at 7 a.m. on the working day follow ing such holiday or stoppage. In case the vessel, whether on demurrage or not, should be able to complete loading by 5 p.m. on the day preceding any Sunday, holiday, or other stoppage of work, tim e should not count either fo r load
in g or demurrage u n til 7 a.m. on the day on which work should be resumed. Demurrage was to be a t the rate of ¿813, payable per collie ry w orking day.” A fte r the expiration of the lay days a strike occurred a t the colliery which prevented the charterers from loading the vessel. In an action fo r demurrage : Held, th a t tim e lost through a strike was not to be included in the term “ colliery w orking days,” and th a t the charterers were not liable fo r demurrage during such tim e. (Ct. of App.) Saxon S.S. Co.
Lim ited v. Union S.S. Co. Lim ited ; Union S.S. Co.
Lim ited v. Davis and Sons L im ited... page 449, 574 7. Colliery guarantee. — Strike — Demurrage
L ia b ility of charterers.—B y a charter-party made on the 15th Jan. between the p la in tiffs , the owners, and the defendants, the charterers, a ship was, after discharging her inward cargo, to proceed to such loading berth as the charterers should name, and there load a cargo of steam coal as ordered by the charterers which they bound themselves to ship except in the event of strike of shippers’ pitm en. “ The vessel to be loaded as customary, b u t subject in a ll respects to the collie ry guarantee in w orking days as may be arranged. Any claim fo r demurrage in loading to be be settled w ith the colliery direct, no lia b ility attaching to the charterers in respect thereof.” On the 3rd Feb. the defendants bought a cargo of Hood’s M erthyr C olliery coal fo r the Curzon. On the 6th A p ril Hood’s C olliery stopped owing to the strike, and on the 26th A p ril the defendants procured from the colliery the usual guarantee whereby they undertook to load in tw enty days, subject to the usual exception as to strikes. The ship’s agents refused to accept th is guarantee, as the colliery was on strike, and required to be furnished by a colliery th a t was working, 15 per cent, about not being on strike.
Held, th a t the defendants were not bound to furnish any other guarantee, and th a t the plain
tiffs could not recover damages fo r a breach of the charter-party. (Bingham, J.) Dobell and Co. v. Green and Co... * ' ®
8 . C om m ission— B ro ke r— C a n c e lla tio n o f ch a rte r- p a r ty — The p la in tiff, acting as broker fo r the
defendants, obtained a tim e charter-party fo r th e ir ship upon terms of being paid a commission on a ll hire earned. D uring the currency of the charter-party litig a tio n arose between the defen
dants and the charterers as • to the fitness of the ship fo r the purpose fo r which she was chartered, which resulted in the cancellation of the charter- p a rty by agreement, there being no w ilfu l act or default on the pa rt of the defendants in bringing about th is result. Held, th a t, upon the true con
struction of the contract, the intention of the parties was th a t the p la in tiff should not be en
title d to commission if the earning of hire was prevented by reason of causes such as had m fa ct p u t an end to the charter-party. (C t. of App.) White v. Turnbull M a rtin and Co... 40b 9. D e m u rra g e —“ Always a f lo a t " —Neap tide s —
A charter-party provided th a t a ship should pro
ceed to a certain dock in an English port, or sa near thereto as she m ight safely get, and there load a cargo in the customary manner, always afloat, as and where ordered by the charterers.
Xll
MARITIME LAW CASES.
SUBJECTS OP CASES.
A t the tim e of making the contract both parties were aware th a t at neap tides there was not sufficient water in the dock fo r the ship to load always afloat. The ship arrived a t the dock, and was ordered to a berth where she loaded p a rt of her cargo, and then, in consequence of fa llin g tides and danger of ta kin g the ground, she had to leave the dock and w a it t i l l the next spring tides to return and complete her loading : Held (affirm ing the judgm ent of the court below), th a t the order given by the charterers was one which they were entitled to give under the charter-party, and th a t they were not liable fo r the detention of the ship by want of water at the berth ordered. (H. of L. affirm ing Ct. of App.) Carlton Steamship Co. v. Castle M a il Packets Co... page 325, 402 10. Demurrage — Lay days — Running hours.—
Where a charter-party contained a clause th a t the cargo was to be loaded in seventy-two hours (from 5 p.m. Saturdays to 7 a.m. Mondays, and holidays excepted), and “ if longer detained charterers to pay steamer 16«. 8d. per lik e hour demurrage,” it was held, th a t, in calculating the hours fo r demurrage under th is clause, the de
murrage did not run continuously, but th a t the hours of demurrage m ust be calculated w ith the same exceptions as the lay hours. (Q. B. D iv.) Rayner v. Rederiaktiebolaget Condor ... 43 11. Demurrage—Lay days— Working days —Work
ing hours.—In a charter-party by which ship
owners agreed to provide the charterers w ith ships fo r the carriage of 50,000 tons of iro n ore during a period of twelve months, there was a clause as follow s : “ Charterers or th e ir agents to be allowed 350 tons per w orking day of tw enty-four hours, weather perm itting (Sundays and holidays excepted), fo r loading and dis
charging . . . and to count from 6 a.m. of the day follow ing the day when th Q steamer is reported, unless she be reported before noon, in which case tim e to count from notice of readi
ness . . . steamer to work nt nigh t i f re
quired, also on Sundays and holidays, such tim e not to count as lay days unless used.” Held (affirm ing the judgm ent of Bigham, J., dissen- tiente B igby, L .J.), th a t the charterers were en titled to have tw entv-four working hours to load or discharge each 350 tons, and such hours need not be continuous. (Ct. of App.) Rhymney Steamship Co. Lim ited v. The Iberian Iron Ore Co.; The Forest Steamship Co. v. The Iberian Iro n Ore Co... ... 438 12. Demurrage—Port of loading— Floods.— B y a
charter-party it was agreed th a t the ship should proceed to a certain port and there load from the charterers’ agents a cargo of petroleum in cases a t a certain rate per day. Lay days fo r loading were to commence tw enty-four hours a fte r receipt by the charterers’ agents of w ritte n notice of the steamer’s readiness in berth to receive it, “ strikes, lock-outs, accidents to ra il
way . . . or other causes beyond charterers’
control always excepted.” The railw ay by which o il fo r loading could be brought to the port was p a rtia lly destroyed by floods, and, there being no o il at the port, the charterers’ agents dismissed from th e ir factory the workmen em
ployed in packing the o il in cases. On the supply of o il by T ail being recommenced, delay was caused in loading the ship by the necessity of getting the workmen together again and re
s ta rtin g the w ork of packing. Further delay in loading the ship was also caused by the charterers’
agents, in accordance w ith the practice of shippers a t th a t port, firs t loading two other ships which
had arrived previously to the steamer in question.
H eld, th a t the delay in loading which occurred a fte r the recommencement of the supply of o il by ra il was not covered by the exception clause, and th a t the charterers were liable to damages fo r detention. (Ct. of App.) Re an A rbitration between Messrs. Richardson and Samuel and
@°...page 330 13. Excepted Perils — Port of loading— Cargo.—
The defendants chartered the p la in tiffs ’ vessel fo r the carriage of a cargo of ore from P o ti in the Black Sea, the charter-party containing amongst the excepted perils which m ight prevent or delay the loading of the vessel: “ floods, stoppages of trains, miners or workmen, accidents to railw ays and to mines or piers from which the ore is to be shipped.” In the ordinary course the ore was brought from the mines to the pier by lines of railw ay and could not be brought in any other way, and was not generally brought u n til i t was wanted fo r shipment. The vessel arrived at P oti, b u t no cargo was or could be supplied to her in consequence of the breakdown of the railw ay communication between the mines and the pier, caused by storms and floods, and the vessel sailed away w ith ou t cargo. In an action by the p la in tiffs against the charterers fo r not supplying the cargo : H eld, th a t the ex
ceptions in the charter-party applied not only to causes operating a t the p o rt of loading, but also to causes operating to prevent the ore being brought from the mines to the pier and th a t the charterers were therefore protected by the ex
ceptions. (Mathew, J.) Furness and others v.
Forwood Brothers and Co... . 298 14. F re ig h t—Conditions of hire—Monthly pay
ments—Shipowners’ lien.—Where by a charter- pa rty it was provided th a t the charterer should pay fre ig h t “ a t the rate of 7091. per calender month , . . and a t and after the same rate fo r any p a rt of a month, hire to continue u n til her re-delivery to the owner, payment fo r the said hire to be made in cash m onthly in advance,”
th a t the owner should have a lie n upon cargoes and sub-freight fo r any amount due to him under the charter, and th a t the charterer should have a lien on the ship fo r a ll moneys paid in advance and not earned, it was held (reversing the judg
ment of Mathew, J., dissentiente Sm ith, L. J .), th a t the charterer was bound to pay the fu ll fre ig h t in advance at the beginning of each month, although it m ight be probable th a t the hire would not continue fo r the whole month. (Ct. of App.) Tonnelier v. Smith and others... 327 15. Port charges— Light dues — L ia b ility of
charterer.— B y a clause in a charter-party the charterers were “ to have the option of shipping cattle on deck fo r D eptford or fo r destination.
I f discharged at D eptford charterers pay po rt charges.” The charterers under th is option shipped cattle on deck fo r D eptford, and the vessel touched at D eptford to discharge these cattle, and then proceeded to Leith, her p o rt of destination. Before the vessel was allowed to leave D eptford the shipowner was compelled to pay the whole of the lig h t dues already incurred and to be incurred up to and including L e ith , her place of destination. I f the vessel had gone on to L e ith w ithout touching a t D eptford the ship
owner would have been liable to pay most of the lig h t dues there. Held, (1) th a t these lig h t dues, being charges which the shipowner was compelled to pay at the port, were “ p o rt charges ” w ith in the meaning of the clause in the cha rte r-p a rty; and (2) th a t, inasmuch as the shipowner was compelled to pay the whole of
