i-law

Lloyd's Law Reports

RONAASEN & SON v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 1
Sale of goods (timber staves)-Rejection- Arbitration-Award-Whether timber within contract specifications-Two contracts for sale of staves of 12 in. thickness-Tender under first contract: 85.3 per cent. in some small degree over 12 in.; 10.4 per cent. at least 58 in. - Tender under second contract: 75.3 per cent. in some small degree over 12 in.; 18.3 per cent. at least 58 in. - Finding of umpire that tender was commercially within and merchantable under the contract specifications; and that buyers were not entitled to reject -Variation in thickness-Whether onus upon buyers to show that the variation was more than microscopic or upon sellers to show that the deviation was merely microscopic - Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sects. 13, 14, 30 (3)-Held, that the contracts should be construed according to their legal significance; that the buyers were entitled to timber substantially within the specifications; that some slight variation was permissible under the maxim de minimis non curat lex; that, some variation in thickness being admitted, the onus was on the sellers to show that that variation was merely microscopic; but that, even allowing for any exposure to damp since shipment, the measurements found by the umpire went far beyond any variation permissible - Alternative award upheld, that buyers were entitled to reject-Appeal dismissed.

SULLIVAN v. CONSTABLE.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 10
Sale of yacht-Breach-Agreement by plaintiff to purchase defendant's yacht -No survey-Whether plaintiff bought yacht "as she lies"-Construction of correspondence between parties - Allegation by plaintiff that he closed only upon defendant's assurance that yacht was perfectly sound - Purchase completed-Yacht in fact affected with dry rot-Repairs and other costs incurred by plaintiff-Right of recovery against defendant - Held, that the defendant by his conduct or that of his agent was estopped from denying that the contract was concluded on the term that the yacht was in sound condition (Smith v. Hughes, (1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 597, applied); and that therefore plaintiff was entitled to recover the total cost of repairs, &c. (less sum claimed in respect of defect in motor, there being no evidence that defect existed at date of purchase)-Appeal dismissed.

THE "WITROCK."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 18
Collision between plaintiffs' sailing barges and elevator in tow of defendants' tug -Damages - Reference - Appeal and cross-appeal against Judge's order varying the Registrar's report-Loss of use of barges by reason of collision- Detention for repairs.

THE "MONS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 20
Salvage - Services rendered by trawler Heugh to Norwegian steamer Mons in North Sea-Mons flying "N.C." signal and requesting immediate assistance -No wireless-Very severe weather -Vessel towed 83 miles to Aberdeen- £140 damages sustained by trawler - Services rendered with great pluck and determination-Vessel rescued from position of very considerable danger- Salved values: £2666-Award: £650 (including damages sustained).

THE "PALLAS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 21
Negligence - Bad berth - Damage to plaintiffs' steel motor schooner - Grounding on defendants' berth after extraordinary method of approach- Cracks in frame after loading of part cargo-Subsequent discovery of hump in berth - Nature of hump - Judge satisfied that hump was not there during recent clearances of the berth and that it had not been negligently overlooked by defendants' servants- Held, that although the damage was no doubt due to the presence of the hump, the plaintiffs had not made out any case against the defendants (The hump was probably the result of the schooner's method of approach).

BRIGHT v. ASHFOLD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 25
Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 35 (1), 36 (1), 38 - Information preferred against respondent alleging that he was using a motor-cycle on a road without a policy of insurance or security in respect of third-party risks as complied with the requirements of the Act-Policy excepting insurers from liability to indemnify against third-party claims if cycle carrying passenger unless sidecar used-Passenger riding pillion-Effect of Sect. 38-Appeal from Justices' refusal to convict - Held, that Sect. 38 had no application to the condition of the policy, which circumscribed the operation of the policy from the beginning - Case remitted to justices with a direction to convict.

OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE CORPORATION, LTD., AND ANOTHER v. COLE.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 26
Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 35 (1), 36 (5), 112 (3)-Appellants convicted of issuing a certificate of insurance which was to their knowledge false in a material particular-Policy against third-party risks in force-Renewal date June 3- Premium paid June 11 - Certificate issued describing commencement of insurance as June 3-Held, that even if the certificate was false in any material particular (which was doubted by Avory and Hawke, JJ.) there was certainly no falsity to the knowledge of the appellants, who had merely taken a mistaken view of the Act - Appeal allowed-Conviction quashed.

JACKSON (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) v. BRITISH MEXICAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 31
Revenue - Income tax - Assessment - Computation of respondents' profits and gains - Debt owing to H company - Admitted liability - Agreement between parties by which part of debt released by H company - Whether account should be re-opened and amount released be applied to reduce the debit items in the trading account or whether amount should appear as a credit item for the year of release - Held, that, as the amount of liability was correctly stated as finally agreed and the subsequent release proceeded on the footing of the correctness of that statement, there was no right to re-open the account; nor could the release from liability, which liability was finally dealt with in the preceding account, form a trading receipt in the account for the year of release - Appeal by Crown dismissed.

CHINA NAVIGATION CO., LTD. v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 37
Shipping - Piracy - Provision of armed guards by Crown for protection of merchant vessels against anticipated danger - Notification by Crown that armed forces of the Crown would be provided if paid for by shipowners - Whether shipowners as British subjects entitled to protection as of right - Right of Crown legally to demand payment as a condition of rendering service - Held, that there was no duty enforceable by the Courts on the Crown to render such services of protection; that there was no compulsion on the shipowners to make the payment complained of, but that if they wanted the services they must pay for them if required to do so; and that the payment, where made, was sanctioned and controlled by Parliament in the Appropriation Act under the system of appropriations in aid under the Public Accounts & Charges Act, 1891 - Appeal dismissed.

THE "AMERICAN TRADER."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 54
Collision between tug Royalist and steamship American Trader in Gallions Reach, River Thames - Royalist in process of turning; American Trader bound up-Royalist sunk and all her navigating crew drowned - Duty of Royalist to give fullest possible warning of her manoeuvres-Finding that American Trader was proceeding up at a fast, though not a negligent, speed- No evidence of bad look-out-Inexplicable manoeuvres of Royalist - Held, that the collision was due to the Royalist crossing the bows of the American Trader from port to starboard and recrossing from starboard to port without giving warning of her intended manoeuvres; and that therefore, there being no evidence of negligence on the part of the American Trader, the Royalist was alone to blame.

WEYERHAEUSER AND OTHERS v. EVANS.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 62
Insurance (accident) - Death of assured from septic‘mia following infection by staphylococci originating in a pimple -Policy covering "any bodily injury by accident, which shall . . . directly cause the death of the assured" -Claim by administrators-"This policy does not cover death directly or indirectly caused or contributed to by . . . disease or natural causes . . . nor does it cover death directly or indirectly resulting from medical or surgical treatment" - Whether original occurrence of pimple was an "accident" - Plaintiffs' evidence that pimple was treated by friend; and that such treatment broke the tissues and accidentally caused the infection - Held, that there was no evidence showing that there was any accident or accidental injury causing the pimple; that it was not satisfactorily shown that the pimple was in fact treated by the friend, as alleged; that, even if it was so treated, it was not satisfactorily shown that that treatment was the cause of infection; and that therefore the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of showing that the death of the assured was due to bodily injury by accident-Claim dismissed.

LEON AND OTHERS v. CASEY.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 69
Practice - Discovery of documents - Affidavit of ship's papers - Open cover - Issue of marine policy with "warehouse to warehouse" clause covering transit from Cairo to Jaffa via Alexandria - Goods lost by lorry fire on journey from Cairo to Alexandria - Appeal against order requiring assured to make affidavit of ship's papers - Held, following Harding v. Bussell, [1905] 2 K.B. 83, that the right to an order for ship's papers applied where a claim was made under a policy which was substantially in the form of a marine policy, even though the claim concerned land transit preceding or subsequent to the marine adventure - Appeal dismissed.

THE "TORNI."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 78
Bill of lading-Conflict of laws-Damage to and short delivery of cargo (oranges) - Unseaworthiness - Bills of lading issued and signed by residents in Palestine, cargo being shipped by regular service from Palestine to England - Claims by plaintiff cargo-owners against shipowners: (1) as indorsees suing under Bills of Lading Act, 1855; (2) upon implied contract arising from presentation of, taking of delivery and payment of freight under, bills of lading - "This bill of lading wherever signed, is to be construed in accordance with English law" - Whether contract governed by English law or by implied clause paramount (Government of Palestine Carriage of Goods by Sea Ordinance, No. 43 of 1926) providing that "every bill of lading . . . issued in Palestine which contains or is evidence of any contract to which the rules [in effect the Hague Rules] apply shall contain an express statement that it is to have effect subject to the provisions of the said rules as applied by this Ordinance, and shall be deemed to have effect subject thereto, notwithstanding the omission of such express statement"- Intention of parties - Illegality - -Held, by Langton, J., that the bill of lading contract was governed by the Palestine Ordinance and that the laws of Palestine applied, and that therefore the indorsees as such were entitled to rely upon such Ordinance; as to the plaintiffs suing upon implied contract, held, that, although their position was not regulated by the Bills of Lading Act, 1855, the shipowners had not shown that anything had occurred to alter the original contract in the hands of the new holders, and that therefore that contract also was governed by the Ordinance.

THE "VESTRIS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 86
Practice-Stay of action-Loss of vessel- Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners - Similar action pending in America-Application by shipowners to stay action here-Provision in bills of lading that claims for loss or damage should be dealt with in New York according to American law to the exclusion of proceedings in any other country - Whether amounting to a submission under Sect. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889-Discretion of Judge- Held, that even if the bills of lading showed an express intention of the shipowners that any litigation should be brought in America, the exceptional circumstances, such as, for example, the defendants' residence and control here, and the fact that the present claim had been discussed by the parties here for upwards of two years, did not warrant his Lordship in staying the action - Leave to appeal refused.

THE "HARCOURT."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 89
Collision between sailing barge Mary Graham and steamship Harcourt in Long Reach, River Thames - Mary Graham tacking up river; Harcourt overtaking - Duty of steamship - Privileged position of barge-Held, that the barge was navigating in a normal and seamanlike way; and that the collision was solely due to the failure of the steamship to keep out of the way of the barge - Harcourt found alone to blame.

THE "HALIOTIS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 92
Collision between motor vessels Chisone and Haliotis off Beachy Head in dense fog - Dispute as to speeds and signals - Duty of vessels in fog - Held, that the Chisone was not proceeding at speed, nor was she absolutely stationary; that she was sounding "lying stopped" signals in good faith and without negligence; and that she took no action which was a cause contributing to the collision; that the Haliotis was negligent in failing to stop on hearing the signals of the Chisone ahead; and that she was also negligent in hard-a-porting her helm, which was a risk taken without facts to warrant it - Haliotis found alone to blame.

JOINT DANUBE AND BLACK SEA SHIPPING AGENCIES v. REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET IRIS.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 97
Charter-party - Rectification-Adaptation of "Dancon" form-Steamer to load part cargo of grain of 3000 tons 10 per cent. more or less in captain's option -Option clause ["It is further agreed that charterers have the option of loading a full and complete cargo of wood and/or grain . . . . on deadweight basis, in which case charterers shall pay freight at the rate of 3d. extra per ton . . ."] unaltered-Wood loaded-Whether shipowners entitled to freight on vessel's deadweight cargo capacity-Intention of parties-Claim by charterers that charter-party as rectified entitled them to ship measurement cargo of any capacity up to 3300 tons in weight-Counterclaim by shipowners for extra freight and for demurrage-Held, that there was a joint mistake by both charterers' and shipowners' agents in drawing up the charter; that the parties intended the option for deadweight to apply only to the part cargo and that the charterers were entitled to rectification on that basis; but that there was implied in the charter so rectified a term that the space available for the charterers was limited to that space which would be occupied by 3300 tons deadweight, and that therefore, the charterers occupying more, the shipowners were entitled to freight on the excess, which his Lordship estimated at 200 tons; and that the shipowners were entitled to some demurrage- Judgment for charterers on claim for rectification, without costs-Judgment for shipowners on counterclaim, with costs.

HARLEY v. GARDNER.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 104
Charter-party - Claim by charterers for damages for wrongful detention and/or for breach of contract or duty under charter-party - Freight due on completion of loading - Freight not paid - "The owners of the steamer have the right of lien upon the cargo laden on board for the recovery and payment of all freight, dead freight, demurrage and all other charges whatsoever" - Cargo discharged into warehouse for account of shipowners - Extent of lien - Held, that the shipowner had a lien upon the cargo for all charges necessarily and properly incurred by him in discharging and warehousing.

THE "EUMAEUS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 109
Collision between steamships Eirini N. Rallia and Eumaeus in Crosby Channel, River Mersey, in fog - Eirini N. Rallia inward bound; Eumaeus outward bound - Dispute as to place of collision, visibility, courses, look-out and speeds - Unreliable evidence - Held, that both vessels were proceeding in mid-channel at excessive speed; that the Eirini N. Rallia had a good look-out and heard the signals of the Eumaeus ahead, that she was negligent in failing to stop, but that she took the right action in porting when the Eumaeus came in sight; that the Eumaeus had a bad look-out and failed to hear the signals of the Eirini N. Rallia ahead, and that she took the wrong action in starboarding when the Eirini N. Rallia came in sight - Both found to blame -Apportionment: Eirini N. Rallia, one-third; Eumaeus, two-thirds.

THE "KRIVS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 122
Collision between steamship Mundra and Krivs in Northfleet Hope, River Thames, in fog-Mundra bound down; Krivs bound up-Dispute as to range of visibility and place of collision - Look-out - Held, that the collision happened substantially to the southward of mid-channel; that the Mundra's speed was in the circumstances excessive; that the Krivs' speed was excessive; that she was not sounding for fog in accordance with the Thames By-laws; and that she proceeded too far on her course before making her port helm turn at Tilbury Ness - Both vessels found to blame-Apportionment: Mundra, one-quarter; Krivs, three-quarters - Apportionment of costs refused.

THE "SUS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 131
Salvage - Services rendered by Plymouth lifeboat to auxiliary yacht Sus off Rame Head - Vessel towed 10 miles to Plymouth - Dispute as to prevailing weather - Weather worsening - Sails hauled down - Exhibition of blue flares: whether requesting immediate assistance or the services of a pilot - Held, that the flares were exhibited as a request for assistance; and that the yacht was rescued from a position of danger - Salved value: £800 - Tender: £100 - Award: £150 - Costs on County Court scale.

HAIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. SOCIEDAD ANONIMA COMERCIAL DE EXPORTACION E IMPORTACION (LOUIS DREYFUS & CIA., LDA.).

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 136
Charter-party - Holidays (San Nicolas) - Dispatch money - "The steamer shall be loaded at . . . tons per running day . . . Sundays and holidays excepted . . ." - "Dispatch money (which is to be paid to charterers before steamer sails) shall be payable for all time saved in loading (including Sundays and holidays saved) . . ." - Meaning of "holidays" - Whether restricted to national or general holidays or including provincial or municipal holidays - Dispatch money claimed by charterers in respect of two days (Nov. 19 and Dec. 6, 1928, provincial and municipal holidays respectively) - Dec. 6 treated as working day in charterers' first time sheet, rendered before ship sailed - Second time sheet treating Dec. 6 as holiday - Estoppel - Held, that holidays were non-working days which varied with the particular districts, and that both days were rightly included as holidays; and that, there being no question of settled account between the parties, the charterers were not estopped from revising their account after the steamer sailed - Award in favour of charterers upheld.

LEVY v. COHEN, SONS & CO., LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 139
Sale of goods (scrap iron) - Breach - Sale by defendants to plaintiff of bundles of scrap iron to implement plaintiff's contract with Swedish buyers - Scrap mixed with other scrap supplied by K - Rejection by Swedish buyers of whole consignment on ground of quality - Scrap to be free from tinned materials and to be fit for use in Martin furnaces - Construction - Onus of proof - Held, that "free" did not mean "chemically free" but that it imported that the scrap should be sufficiently free from impurities to make it suitable and safe to use in Martin furnaces; and that it was not shown that the scrap tendered by the plaintiff to Swedish buyers contained any properly objectionable material; further, that even if it did it was not shown that the fault lay in that part sold by the defendants - Claim dismissed.

UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY, LTD. v. H. A. MOON (REVENUE OFFICER).

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 146
Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, Sects. 5, 6 (3) (b) - Derating - Freight-transport hereditaments - Cold storage premises included in special list - Claim by Crown to apportionment - Held, that the evidence showed that some part of the hereditament was "primarily occupied and used for warehousing merchandise not in the course of being transported" and that therefore the Crown was entitled to an apportionment.

THE "MONS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 151
Ship-Arrest and sale at instigation of salvors-Claims against fund by (1) master and crew for wages; (2) master for disbursements; (3) salvors who had secured judgment against vessel- Priorities - Ranking - Master's and crew's liens for wages compared - Whether master's lien for disbursements on same footing as lien for wages - Whether master's disbursements should rank pari passu or in inverse order of attachment - Held, that the crew's claim for wages had priority to the master's; that the master's lien for disbursements was on the same footing as his lien for wages; that the master's claims in respect of disbursements ranked pari passu; and that the order of claims was (1) costs of arrest up to the date of the order for sale; (2) crew's wages after salvage; (3) master's wages and disbursements after salvage; (4) salvage and costs; (5) crew's wages before salvage; (6) master's wages and disbursements before salvage.

THE "SHANKLIN."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 153
Collision between tug Irishman (towing barge Mary Offer) and paddle steamer Shanklin in Portsmouth Harbour-Tug proceeding up channel; Shanklin leaving landing stage-Onus of proof- Held, that the Shanklin had properly committed herself to leave the jetty before she became aware of the tug; that the Shanklin was put in difficulty of manoeuvre by a hopper in the vicinity and was unable to go astern, which would have been the usual manoeuvre in such circumstances; and that the collision was due to the tug erroneously anticipating that manoeuvre and failing to take off her way in time-Judgment for Shanklin.

THE "ZIGURDS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 156
Ship-Sale under order of Court- Claims against proceeds by English and German necessaries men, by master for disbursements and by mortgagee- Priorities-Ranking-(1) Assignment of freight to mortgagee-Whether legal or equitable-(2) Right of mortgagee to intervene in master's claim for disbursements-(3) Whether German necessaries men entitled as "ship's creditors" under German law to rank ahead of both mortgagee and other necessaries men-Held (1) that, there being no express notice in writing to the debtor of the mortgagee's claim, the provisions of Sect. 136 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, were not complied with and that therefore there was no legal assignment of the freight; (2) that in the circumstances the mortgagee had no right to intervene in the master's claim; (3) that whatever the position of the German necessaries men under German law, the question of priorities was determined by the lex fori, which did not recognise such a claim; further, that that right conferred by German law only followed upon arrest by the German Court-The Colorado, 13 Ll.L.Rep. 474; (C.A.) 14 Ll.L.Rep. 251, distinguished.

PORTVALE STEAMSHIP CO., LTD. v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE CORPORATION.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 161
Insurance (marine)-Voyage-Time policy -Various items of damage sustained by vessel on voyage from Pernambuco to Antwerp-Vessel laid up at Antwerp for 412 months after discharge-Further damage sustained during that period- Whether arising on same voyage-Institute Time Clauses-"(16) A voyage shall be deemed to commence at one of the following periods to be selected by the assured when making up the claim, viz., at any time at which the vessel (1) begins to load cargo or (2) sails in ballast to a loading port. Such voyage shall be deemed to continue during the ensuing period until either she has made one outward and one homeward passage (including an intermediate ballast passage if made) or has carried and discharged two cargoes whichever may first happen, and further, in either case, until she begins to load a subsequent cargo or sails in ballast for a loading port"-Construction- Held, that the damage sustained while lying up occurred during the voyage which commenced at Pernambuco.

KAYE STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD. v. BARNETT, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 166
Charter-party - Breach - Refusal by charterers to load-Previous finding of his Lordship that the charterers had broken their contract, but that, in assessing damages, account should be taken of the right of the charterers to detain vessel at Rosario (loading port) for 33 days without incurring demurrage -Charterers' further contentions: (1) that the charterers could have detained vessel at wharf at Rosario for 33 days, the shipowners thereby incurring wharfage dues; (2) that vessel could have been ordered to discharge at Ipswich-Held, that the charterers were right and that the damages must be assessed on those bases.

ARCOS, LTD. v. LONDON & NORTHERN TRADING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 168
Sale of goods (pitprops)-Rejection by buyers (defendants)-Sale by plaintiffs of "entire production of pitprops available for 1931 shipment"-Various lengths-Top diameters: 212 in.-312 in. to 212 in.-11 in.-"(22) In the event of any dispute arising in connection with measurement or acceptance of goods as to quantity, quality, condition or dimensions, such dispute shall be referred to the decision of the gosbracker at port of loading, whose ruling shall be final and binding on both parties"-Preliminary questions for the Court: (1) Whether the defendants were bound to accept timber felled earlier than the winter of 1930/31; (2) Whether the defendants were entitled to receive in each shipment or parcel of a particular length props ranging fairly between specified extreme diameters of tops for such lengths so that by such range there should be approximately 50 per cent. thick and 50 per cent. thin top diameters; (3) (a) What questions were within the jurisdiction of the gosbracker, and in particular whether he had jurisdiction to decide questions (1) and (2); (b) Whether the decisions relied on by the plaintiffs were decisions of the gosbracker; (c) Whether the circumstances in which the said decisions were obtained and/or given as shown by the documents disclosed by the plaintiff were such as to entitle the defendants to say they were not bound by such decisions; and (d) To what extent the decisions of the gosbracker are binding on the defendants, if at all-Held, as to (1), that the plaintiffs were entitled to ship and that the defendants (subject to their right of rejection on account of quality or condition) were bound to accept timber felled before the winter of 1930; as to (2), that the defendants were entitled to receive a fair range of the specified sizes, approximating 50 per cent. thick and 50 per cent. thin top diameters; as to (3a) and (3d), that the only questions within the jurisdiction of the gosbracker were questions of quantity, quality, condition or dimensions; as to (3b), that whether decisions of the gosbracker or gos inspector they were decisions by the person designated under Clause 22; as to (3c), that the question depended on circumstances of which his Lordship was not informed, and therefore he could not answer it-No costs awarded.

WILLIAMS v. ATLANTIC ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 177
Insurance (marine) - Loss of textile goods - Goods insured under open policy - Assignment of part interest in policy in discharge of debt-Claim by assignee - Right to sue - Onus of proof of value - Prime cost - Alleged fraud and/or concealment-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 15, 16 - Law of Property Act, 1925, Sect. 136 - R.S.C., Order 17, r. 3 - Held, that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the value of the goods lost; that where fraud and/or concealment was pleaded there was a duty upon the underwriter accepting the risk to give evidence upon that plea; (per Scrutton and Slesser, L.JJ.) that the policy being unvalued the plaintiff had given no satisfactory evidence corroborating the alleged value of the lost goods at the time of shipment; (per Greer and Slesser, L.JJ.) that the plaintiff as assignee of a part interest in the policy was no more than an equitable assignee and was not entitled to sue without joining the assignors as co-plaintiffs.

THE "HUNTERFIELD."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 191
Collision between sailing barge Minnie and steamship Hunterfield in Woolwich Reach, River Thames - Minnie tacking up river; Hunterfield overtaking - Admission of blame by Hunterfield - Whether Minnie also to blame - Held, that the collision was solely due to the negligent navigation of the Hunterfield in that she had a bad look-out, took helm action too late and navigated on the wrong side of the river.

LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHESTER & SON.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 195
Railways - Powers - Access to fish quays occupying space on plaintiffs' premises (Hull Docks) - Agreement between plaintiff railway company (as dock-owners) and defendant fish merchants - Transport of fish from docks - Whether plaintiffs entitled to impose conditions governing the use of motor vehicles for transport and to an injunction restraining the defendants from using road transport in certain circumstances - Prevention of congestion in docks - Right to exclude any vehicle intended for transport of fish by road beyond a radius of 12 miles from the docks - Consideration of plaintiffs' powers regarding the landing and sale of fish and of defendants' right of access at common law and by statute - Hull Docks Acts - Held, that the plaintiffs were not bound to allow fish sales to take place on the particular quays and that the defendants had no common law or statutory right of access to those quays unless and until they became entitled to goods upon them; that the defendants were not entitled to access to the quays before they were so entitled to goods except by the licence of the plaintiffs; that that licence could be given subject to any conditions which the plaintiffs chose to impose; that in fact the defendants were given a licence entitling them to attend sales and that, having purchased fish, a statutory right to remove that fish accrued to them; that that right implied the right to use such vehicles as were reasonably necessary for the purpose of such removal; that there was no statutory right in the plaintiffs to direct how the fish should be removed; that there being no statutory obligation on the plaintiffs to permit the defendants to occupy space on the quay, if the defendants desired those facilities they must agree the terms with the plaintiffs; but that, under the licence granted by the plaintiffs, the defendants were entitled to bring vehicles upon the plaintiffs' premises for the removal of defendants' fish, and there was no right in plaintiffs to superimpose any further condition while that licence was in operation.

BRITISH TRAWLERS FEDERATION, LTD., AND OTHERS v. LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 207
Railways - Powers - Access to fish quay (Lowestoft) - Right of defendant railway company (owning quay) to impose upon plaintiffs (having business on defendants' quay) conditions governing the use of motor vehicles for transport of fish from quays - Prevention of congestion - Alleged obligation upon defendants to allow fish market on quay - Common law rights considered - "Fish" as non-customable goods - Whether rights affected by statute - Lowestoft Navigation Acts - Incorporation of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847 - Sects. 33, 83 - "Shipping and unshipping of goods" - Held, that there was no common law right of access to the quay; that "fish" being non-customable goods, a private fish quay was still possible at common law; that the defendants were entitled at common law to all the rights of an owner of property, which included the refusal of access; that the right of access under Sect. 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act for the "shipping and unshipping of goods" did not include the right to sell, clean or pack fish on the quays, nor could any compulsion on the defendants to allow a fish market on the quay be implied from the defendants' Acts; and that therefore the defendants were entitled to impose upon the plaintiffs such conditions as they pleased concerning the sale, cleaning or packing of fish on their quay, subject, however, to any contractual rights which plaintiffs might have.

THE "SPIDER."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 217
Negligence - Damage to barge during unloading by falling of grab attached to crane - Breaking of link in chain - Res ipsa loquitur - Presumption of negligence - Onus of proof - Periodical examination and testing of the chain - Held, that the falling of the grab was due to a latent defect in the chain which was not discoverable by the exercise of reasonable care and skill on the part of the defendants - Claim dismissed.

THE "TOURMALINE."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 220
Salvage - Services rendered by trawler Gambri to trawler Tourmaline off the coast of Iceland - Tourmaline disabled - Propeller obstructed by trawl nets - Towage 45 miles to Skutilsfjord - No immediate danger - Gunboat in attendance-Salved values, £11,240 - Tender of £300 - Award, £550.

LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. FURNESS SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 224
Contract - Indemnity - Defendant contractors engaged in reconstruction of plaintiffs' railway bridge - One of defendants' workmen killed and another injured by open carriage door of passing train - Negligence of plaintiffs' servants - Compensation claims against plaintiffs settled - Claim by plaintiffs against defendants under indemnity clause in contract - "34 (a) The contractor shall be responsible for and provide against all risks and contingencies whatever that may arise in respect of the works, and shall be liable to make good and pay for any interruption, accident, damage, loss or injury of, or to any person, property, or rights, whether public or private, and any loss of life caused in connection with the works, and shall indemnify the company against all actions, claims, losses, costs and expenses in respect of any such interruption, accident, damage, loss or injury as aforesaid or any such loss of life (even though the company may be primarily or jointly with the contractor liable therefor) and against all liability under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act, 1926, or any amendment thereof or otherwise . . . . (b) For the purpose of more effectually indemnifying the company against all claims in respect of accident, injury or loss of life to workmen employed by the contractor or any sub-contractor, the contractor shall forthwith take out a policy of insurance in the joint names of the company and the contractor with an insurance company to be approved by the engineer, insuring the company and the contractor against their or his liabilities in respect of any such accident, injury, or loss of life, including all liabilities under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act, 1926, or any amendment thereof or otherwise . . . . The said policy shall also include any claim or claims by third parties in respect of any injury (fatal or non-fatal) to persons or damage to property, plant, materials or things of any kind in connection with the carrying out of the works . . . ."-Construction - Held, that the indemnity was not limited to an act or default of the defendants but extended to any accidents "caused in connection with the works"; that the circumstances of the accident disclosed a sufficient connection with the works; and that therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to an indemnity.

DRACH HOLZINDUSTRIE, A/G. v. H. YAGER (LONDON), LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 228
Sale of goods (timber)-Claim by plaintiff sellers for price of timber delivered and for declaration that parties had agreed to cancel further deliveries-Counterclaim for damages in respect of (1) unshipped balance; (2) quality of timber delivered-Sale of "prime Czechoslovakian ash boules, the entire quantity suitable for the English market from [plaintiffs'] stocks at Munkac to be inspected and passed by buyers' representative" - Provision for cancellation in case of dispute- Rejection by defendants of timber tendered under contracts-Allegation by plaintiffs that oral agreement was reached by which the contracts were cancelled so far as they were then unperformed by the plaintiffs, except for the timber selected by defendants' representative.

MOTOR UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. MANNHEIMER VERSICHERUNGSGESELLSCHAFT.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 241
Insurance-Agreements between insurance companies-M. U. Co. to accept risks on English market as agents for M. Co.- M.U. Co. to issue policies in their own name pro tanto as agents for M. Co.- Losses under agreement-Agreement terminated-Claim by M.U. Co. (as agents) against M. Co. (as principals) for indemnity-Further claim on an account stated-Enforceability-Stamp Act, 1891, Sect. 93-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 22, 23-Held, that there being no mention of the M. Co. in the policies issued by the M.U. Co. there was no privity between the assured and the M. Co., and any premiums received and losses paid by the M.U. Co. were received and paid by them as principals in the transaction; and that therefore the agreement between the parties was in the nature of reinsurance and was unenforceable against the M. Co.; further (following In re Home & Colonial Insurance Co., 34 Ll.L.Rep. 463) that the M.U. Co. could not recover on part of their claim as upon an account stated.

THE "BURMA."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 245
Collision between steamships Larchwood and Burma off Flamborough Head in fog-Vessels on slightly crossing courses -Speeds-Duty to stop under Art. 16- Helm action by Larchwood-"Lying stopped" signals blown by Burma before way in fact off - Misleading signals-Held, that the Larchwood was proceeding at excessive speed and that she failed to stop on hearing the signal of the Burma ahead; that although the Burma was erroneously sounding "lying stopped" signals they were sounded in good faith and did not contribute to the collision; and that the collision was solely due to the porting of the Larchwood at speed across the bows of the Burma.

THE "YVONNE" AND THE "EFFRA."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 252
Collision between steamships Yorkshire Coast and Yvonne, followed by collision between Yorkshire Coast and steamship Effra, in Limehouse Reach, River Thames - Yorkshire Coast bound down against tide; Yvonne, with anchor down, turning in river; Effra bound up-Whether Yvonne should have exhibited anchor light-Turning signals sounded by Yvonne-Duty of Yorkshire Coast to have taken off her way on becoming aware of the Yvonne ahead-Starboarding by Yorkshire Coast under stern of Yvonne into Effra's water - Effra unable to avoid collision-Held, that the Yvonne was not held by her anchor and was not therefore bound to exhibit an anchor light; that the Yvonne and the Effra were being navigated in a careful and seamanlike manner; and that the collision was due to the negligent manoeuvres of the Yorkshire Coast - Yorkshire Coast found alone to blame. Practice-Pleadings-"Regulation lights" -Particulars should be given.

THE "STRONA."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 257
Collision between hopper (in tow of tug) and steamship Strona in Gravesend Reach, River Thames - Hopper bound down; Strona bound up-Tug towing with long scope of tow rope-Porting by Strona for tug, vessels successfully passing port to port - Whether subsequent collision with hopper due to hopper's sheer- Held, that there was a bad look-out on the Strona; and that the collision was due to the Strona having committed herself to starboard helm action (to straighten up) at a time when she should have been aware of the hopper-Strona found alone to blame.

THE "CASTOR."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 261
Salvage - Services rendered by steamship Ousebridge to motor vessel Castor in Atlantic Ocean - Vessel on fire aft and temporarily abandoned by crew - Towage of 180 miles to St. Michaels (Azores) occupying nearly seven days- Discussion of perils endangering Castor-Value of salved property- Whether time charter (with nearly seven years to run) should have been taken into account in appraisement- Held, as to the service, that at the time the vessel was taken in tow the worst period of the fire had passed; that there was not imminent peril of loss by sea risks; but that nevertheless the service was an excellent one and was rendered in face of serious difficulties; as to the value, that the value to be ascertained was the value of the vessel to her owners as a going concern, bearing in mind her damaged condition; that the valuer should have taken the time charter into account; but that, the appraisement having proceeded on the footing that the vessel was an employed vessel likely to be employed, and the charter hire not being exceptional, the only element of value proper for further consideration was the agreed duration of the charter-Salved values of ship and cargo on that basis: £106,000-Award: £11,500-Excessive bail demanded by plaintiffs-Plaintiffs mulcted in costs.

THE "AMERICAN TRADER."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 270
Collision between steamships Manora and American Trader in Gravesend Reach, River Thames - Manora bound up, closely followed by American Trader -Sudden warning by Manora that she was turning to starboard preparatory to anchoring-Engines reversed, giving her sternway-Cant to port-Hard-a-porting and full speed ahead by American Trader in endeavour to pass clear of Manora- Look-out-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1926, Rule 23-Held, that the American Trader was navigated in a careful and seamanlike manner and that the collision was due to the failure of the Manora to give adequate warning of her intended manoeuvres - Manora found alone to blame.

YOUNG v. MERCHANTS' MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 277
Insurance (marine) - Running down clause - Defendants' policy (covering steamship W against all risks) including running down clause - Reinsurance with plaintiff against total loss only - Total loss of W after collision with steamship M - Vessels found equally to blame - Payment by plaintiff to defendants on total loss basis - Effect of running down clause - Principle of cross-liabilities - Claim by plaintiff to recover proportion of amount deemed to have been received by defendants as due from the owners of the M - Held, that the terms of the running down clause were not included in the reinsurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendants but were res inter alios acta; further, that there was no more than a notional recovery by the owners of the W from the owners of the M; and that therefore the plaintiff's claim failed - Plaintiff's appeal dismissed.

THE "CANADIAN TRANSPORT."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 286
Collision - Damages - Reference - Cargo damage-Motor vessel Christel Vinnen sunk in collision with steamship Canadian Transport in River Parana - Agreed blame: Christel Vinnen, 25 per cent.; Canadian Transport, 75 per cent. - Claim by owners of cargo on board Christel Vinnen against owners of Canadian Transport-Cargo discharged and taken to Buenos Aires -Another cargo purchased and shipped by plaintiffs in another chartered vessel - Original cargo eventually shipped - Loss to plaintiffs by interruption of business - Miscellaneous expenditure in handling of cargo, &c. - Judgment reducing Registrar's assessment of damages-Alleged errors in order drawn up by Registrar in accordance with judgment - Refusal by Judge to amend.

THE "TEECO."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 288
Collision between steamships Cato and Teeco in River Avon - Cato bound up with tide; Teeco bound down-Vessels rounding bend in river - Narrow channel - Held, that the collision happened in the Cato's water and that it was solely due to the Teeco having got in difficulties in making her way round the bend - Teeco found alone to blame.

THE "QUAKER CITY."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 292
Collision between Estonian steamship Kinnika and American steamship Quaker City in Long Reach, River Thames, in fog - Kinnika at anchor; Quaker City manoeuvring preparatory to anchoring - Look-out - Whether Kinnika was sounding her bell-Held, that the Kinnika was sounding her bell in accordance with the regulations and that therefore the Quaker City was alone to blame.

ANGLO CELTIC SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 295
Charter-party - Breach - Damages - Time-charter for a voyage in ballast from East Coast port to Archangel to load, thence to River Plate (hire at 4s. 3d. on 7600 tons dead-weight per month)-Addendum to charter that vessel should first carry cargo from Leningrad to East Coast port (hire at 4s. 3d. on 8020 tons dead-weight per month) and then carry out charter voyage - Failure of charterers to fulfil voyage contemplated by addendum - Damages - Duty of charterers under addendum - Whether addendum satisfied by loading a nominal cargo - Held, that the voyage contemplated by the addendum was separate and distinct from the charter voyage; and that in assessing damages the umpire was right in considering the time which would normally be occupied by the vessel in proceeding to the loading port, and in loading and discharging a normal (i.e., a full) cargo.

[The following case is reprinted, with acknowledgments, from [1932] A.M.C. 863.] THE "VESTRIS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 299
Ship - Loss on winter voyage from New York to South American ports - List developed soon after commencement of voyage, gradually increasing until vessel capsized - Claim by shipowners to limit liability - Whether loss due to unseaworthiness on sailing or to perils of the sea or faults in navigation or management - Onus of proof - Weather conditions - Overloading - Defective openings in vessel - Hatch covers provided but inaccessible - Stability of vessel - Means of ascertaining metacentric height - Shipowners' knowledge of necessity to keep ballast tanks filled and hard pressed up - Failure to inform captain or officers - Tanks pumped out - Alleged neglect of captain to summon aid in time - Sufficient number of seaworthy and properly equipped lifeboats carried - Hazardous though not negligent method of launching, bearing in mind heavy list - Held, that the weather encountered was no more severe than was reasonably to be anticipated on the particular voyage at that time of the year; that the loss was due to a combination of causes (e.g., the vessel was tender and overloaded (814 in. below her winter marks), which reduced her buoyancy and stability, and which brought certain defective openings nearer to the water, allowing water to enter; the shipowners had failed to notify the master of the necessity of which they were aware of keeping the vessel's bottom tanks filled and hard pressed up and which were pumped out by him); and that the shipowners has not discharged the onus of showing the exercise of due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy in those respects, nor had they established lack of privity or knowledge of those conditions, which certainly contributed to the loss - Limitation refused.

McCULLUM v. NORTHUMBRIAN STEAM SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 317
Workmen's compensation-Accident arising out of and in the course of the workman's employment - Claim by dependant of deceased boatswain - Boatswain making his way across private dock premises to his ship to take up duties (superadded to his articles of agreement as boatswain) as night watchman - Unexplained fall into dock - Whether boatswain should be treated as in continuous employment as a seaman-Held, that as night watching was treated by the articles as part of the work which a seaman might be called upon to perform the case had to be determined on the footing that the boatswain was on the occasion in question in the position of a seaman returning to duty on his ship after leave; that the right to compensation depended upon whether the accident was due to risks to which the public in general were exposed or to risks special to the employment; and that therefore as the boatswain had left the public highway, with its risks common to all wayfarers, and had entered the private premises of the dock in which his ship lay, with its special risks to which only those who had business at the dock were exposed, the accident was an accident sustained by reason of risks incidental to the employment which he would not have encountered but for his employment - Decision of arbitrator and Court of Appeal in favour of dependant affirmed on different grounds.

THE "DERFFLINGER."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 324
Collision between steamships Vimeira and Derfflinger in Whangpoo River, during fog-Vimeira at anchor; Derfflinger preparing to anchor - Subsequent dragging by Vimeira into steamships Wai-Shing and Ning Shao-Serious damage suffered by contact with Ning Shao-Whether dragging due to fouling of anchor chain by chain of Derfflinger - Whether Derfflinger should have anchored sooner - Held, that the Derfflinger had plenty of opportunities of anchoring sooner and that she was negligent in being under way in such weather; that she anchored in such a position as seriously to embarrass the Vimeira, in that their anchor cables were at some time foul of each other and in some way the Vimeira's anchor was broken out of the ground; and that the subsequent collisions, which followed immediately on the dragging of the Vimeira, were directly caused by the improper berth given by the Derfflinger-Derfflinger found alone to blame.

THE "GLENROSE."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 331
Collision between steamships Eston and Glenrose in Gallions Reach, River Thames-Eston making her way across rivet from king George V Dock; Glenrose bound up - Warning signal sounded by Eston before leaving lock- Thames By-law, 1914-1926, Rule 34- Held, that the Eston crossed the river at a proper time, having regard to the Glenrose; and that the collision was due to bad look-out on the Glenrose, to excessive speed in passing the dock entrance and to wrong helm action - Glenrose found alone to blame.

THE "SAINT BARCHAN."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 336
Collision between motor-vessel Morgenen and steamship Saint Barchan in Manchester Ship Canal-Morgenen, bound up, in charge of a tug fore and aft, bringing up to permit the Saint Barchan, bound down, to pass - Whether Morgenen or her head tug embarrassed the Saint Barchan - Held, that the Morgenen and her tugs were being properly navigated on their own side of the canal; that even if her head tug was negligent in being slightly on the wrong side, the Saint Barchan could have avoided the trouble by the exercise of reasonable care and skill; that the Saint Barchan was being navigated at excessive speed; and that the collision was due to over-porting by the Saint Barchan, causing her to smell the ground.

THE "GENERAL I."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 340
Collision between lighter Ena (in tow of tug George Livesey) and motor tug General I in Lower Pool, River Thames-George Livesey, bound down, turning under port helm; General I bound up - Proper turning signals given by George Livesey - Duty of General I to take action to avoid collision -Thames By-laws, 1914-1926, Rule 23-Held, that the collision was due to the failure of the General I to pay attention to the signals and manoeuvres of the George Livesey - General I found alone to blame.

WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF MASTER MARINERS v. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 344
Revenue - Income tax - Exemption - Charitable purposes - Worshipful Company of Master Mariners-Objects of company-Construction-Right of company to exemption from tax- Whether company established for charitable purposes only-Income Tax Act, 1918, Sect. 37-Held, that as the company could, consistently with its charter, engage in non-charitable purposes, it was not entitled to the relief claimed.

COPPER EXPORT ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, AND OTHERS v. MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 348
Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893- Action brought by cargo-owners against Mersey Docks and Harbour Board- Fire on board ship in dock-Sinking of vessel-Obstruction-Right of Harbour Board to raise, destroy or remove wreck at expense of ship and cargo - Dock drained, vessel temporarily repaired, towed out and sold to shipbreakers- Average statement issued by defendants 17 months later setting out expenses incurred and overplus payable to plaintiffs - Claim by plaintiffs to recover certain expenses alleged to have been unnecessarily and negligently incurred by defendants-Action to be commenced "within sir months next after the act, neglect or default complained of" - Writ issued by plaintiffs immediately following upon rendering of statement -Duty of defendants under Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1912, Sect. 7-Whether the "act, neglect or default" was the rendering of the statement showing the alleged deficient overplus-Held, that the "act, neglect or default" complained of was the method adopted by the defendants of dealing with the removal of the vessel, and that the action, not being brought within six months, was therefore barred - Judgment for defendants, with solicitor and client costs.

ABERDEEN GRIT COMPANY v. ELLERMAN'S WILSON LINE.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 352
Carriage of goods by sea-Damage to cargo (iron grit and shot) - Carriage from Aberdeen to Boston via Newcastle -Delivery to defenders' agents at Aberdeen, cargo being carried to Newcastle in coasting steamer belonging to A company-Transshipment by lighter to defenders' steamer at Newcastle-Damage suffered while in lighter - Shipping Instructions: "All goods awaiting shipment are received and carried subject to the conditions of the [defenders'] receipt and/or bills of lading, and also to the conditions and/or regulations of any steamboat, railway or canal company, or persons by whom the goods may be conveyed and all goods are at the risk of the owners of the said goods until actually shipped on board the steamer" -Construction-Held, that the goods while in the lighter were awaiting shipment, and that the Shipping Instructions applied; that, although the Shipping Instructions provided that the goods were carried at the risk of the owners, the shipowners were not exonerated from liability for the negligence of their servants or agents; but that, as the Shipping Instructions provided that while in the lighter the conveyance was covered by the conditions of lighterage issued by the lighterman and as those conditions exonerated the lighterman, the defenders also were exonerated.

HILLAS & CO., LTD. v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 359
Sale of goods - Breach - Agreement by plaintiffs to purchase from defendants "softwood goods of fair specification over the season 1930" - "Buyers shall also have the option of entering into a contract with sellers for the purchase of 100,000 standards for delivery during 1931. Such contract to stipulate that whatever the conditions are, buyers shall obtain the goods on conditions and at prices which shout to them a reduction of 5 per cent. on the f.o.b. value of the official price list at any time ruling during 1931"-Option exercised - Failure of defendants to implement contract - Construction - Enforceability-Whether amounting to an agreement complete in itself or to an agreement that at a future date an agreement would be completed - Measure of damages - Held, that the option having been exercised, such agreement was complete and binding in itself and was not dependent on any future agreement for its validity; as to damages, that the defendants having withheld material from which the learned Judge might more accurately assess the damages, the defendants could not complain of his Lordship's assessment upon such material as he had before him - Appeal allowed - Judgment of MacKinnon, J., restored.

LAZARD BROTHERS & CO., LTD. v. BROOKS.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 372
Insurance-"In and out" policy-Agreement by appellant bankers to provide A with credit facilities in respect of shipments of hides, appellants to accept drafts drawn by sellers, drafts to be accompanied by invoices and by letters from buyers acknowledging their indebtedness and undertaking to reimburse appellants-Fraud of A and his associates in the transaction- Insolvency-Loss sustained by appellants -Claim under policy-"Whereas [the appellants] are desirous of effecting insurance . . . against the loss or deprivation as hereinafter mentioned" of securities-Operative part of policy covering securities "lost mislaid or accidentally destroyed and whether from within or without and whether by officers, clerks, or servants (whether authorised or unauthorised or on salary, commission, share in profits or apprenticed or otherwise) of the [appellants] or by any other person or persons or by the negligence or fraudulent conduct of the said officers, clerks or servants or other person or persons" and against "any other loss whatsoever through the theft, fraud, larceny, embezzlement or other dishonesty of or forgery by any such officer, clerk, servant, person or persons" - Meaning of "any other loss whatsoever" - "Other person or persons"-Ejusdem generis rule-Proximate cause of loss -Ambiguity-Held, that the operative part of the policy was unambiguous and was therefore not controlled by the recital (the recital was merely a statement that the appellants were desirous of effecting insurance against the loss or deprivation "as hereinafter mentioned" of the specified securities and the fact that the operative part was wider in its scope was not inconsistent with such a desire); that the loss came within the words "any other loss whatsoever"; and that the proximate cause of the loss was the fraudulent LAZARD BROTHERS & Co., LTD. v. BROOKS. 373 obtaining of the acceptances-Appeal allowed-Judgment of Wright, J., restored.

WESTRALIAN FARMERS, LTD. v. KING LINE, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 378
Charter-party-Commission on freight- Rate of exchange-Freight payable in British sterling or its equivalent- "(34) Five per cent. commission upon the freight . . . is due and payable at the loading port [Fremantle, W. A.] by the shipowners to the charterers on the vessel being loaded . . . . (35) All sums due in Australia to the charterers shall be paid in Australian currency"- Construction-Charterers' contention that they were entitled in respect of commission on freight to a sum in Australian currency equivalent, at the rate of exchange between Great Britain and Australia on the date when such commission became due, to 5 per cent. of the sum in British sterling agreed to be paid in respect of freight-Held, that no question of rate of exchange was involved (the charter-party expressly provided for the payment or conversion of British sterling where the parties so intended); and that although freight was payable in sterling in London, the sum payable in respect of freight was only material under Clause 34 for the purpose of estimating the sum payable to the charterers as commission, which sum was payable in Australian currency- Shipowners' appeal allowed-Judgment of Rowlatt, J., restored.

THE "CONTEST."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 384
Collision between sailing barge Astrild and tug Contest in Erith Reach, River Thames-Barge tacking up river; tug bound down, close behind steamer- Duty of vessels under by-laws-Look-out -Whether barge altered her course -Held, that the barge had a good look-out; that she kept her course and speed, as she was bound to do under the by-laws; and that the collision was due to the failure of the tug to keep out of her way.

THE "ZIGURDS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 387
Ship - Sale under order of Court - Freight - Claims against proceeds of sale and against freight fund - Priorities - Ranking between (1) ship's agents, claiming as equitable assignees of freight, alleging notice to the consignees; (2) stevedores discharging ship, claiming against freight funds; (3) necessaries men who had executed boiler repairs, claiming against ship and freight funds; and (4) equitable mortgagee-Held, as to the ship fund, that the mortgagee took precedence over the repairers; as to the freight fund, (1) that no satisfactory notice of assignment was given by the ship's agents to the consignees, and therefore, as between the ship's agents and the mortgagee, the mortgagee took before the agents as being prior in point of time; (2) that it was not shown that the stevedores or the ship repairers had contributed any special service entitling them to be treated on a different footing from any other necessaries men, and that therefore, following the ordinary rule, the mortgagee took priority.

THE "ZIGURDS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 391
Ship-Sale under order of Court-Equitable assignment of freight to ship's agents-No necessity to join assignor-Action maintainable in rem.

CONTINENTAL LINES SOCIETE ANONYME v. W. H. HOLT & SONS (CHORLTON-CUM-HARDY), LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 392
Foreign judgment-Indemnity-Sale of whisky by defendants to A-Whisky warehoused at Antwerp by plaintiffs, A holding warehouse receipts-Defendants' instructions to plaintiffs to ship whisky ex warehouse-Claim brought in Belgian Court by A against plaintiffs for conversion-Agreement by defendants to indemnify plaintiffs- Judgment given by Belgian Court against plaintiffs and ordering defendants to indemnify them-Claim by plaintiffs upon foreign judgment- Whether final and conclusive-Enforceability -Illegality of contract of sale- Effect upon rights of parties-Held, as to illegality, that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs were employed to do other than the ordinary work of a shipbroker or shipping agent, and the fact that plaintiffs guessed that the defendants were engaged on a bootlegging adventure did not preclude plaintiffs from suing to recover moneys paid by reason of acting in a perfectly reasonable and ordinary way upon the instructions of their principals; further, that it was not proper to refuse upon that ground to deal with a judgment given by a competent Court in a foreign country; as to enforceability, held, that the right of plaintiffs to indemnity under the foreign judgment was not dependent upon the prior discharge by plaintiffs of their liability to A, but that the judgment was for a certain sum due from defendants to plaintiffs; further, that the foreign judgment was conclusive that the defendants were bound to indemnify plaintiffs under their contract of indemnity.

SEATON v. LONDON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 398
Insurance (motor)-Claim-Insurance of lorry-Engine removed for purposes of repair in assured's workshop-Engine destroyed by fire-Whether covered- Award in favour of assured-Case stated: (1) Is the said lorry a motor lorry for the purposes of the said policy, when the engine of the said lorry is removed to other premises of the owner? (2) Is the insurance one which covers the insured property only when it is in complete condition?-Held, as to (1) that the engine and the rest of the lorry together were still the lorry insured; as to (2) that the answer was in the negative-Award upheld.

ISRAELSON v. DAWSON (PORT OF MANCHESTER INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, GARNISHEES).

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 401
Insurance (motor) - Garnishee order against insurance company-Judgment obtained by plaintiff against assured in default of appearance-£150 damages not paid - Claim by plaintiff to garnishee debt alleged to be due under policy from company to assured - Policy taken out before passing of Road Traffic Act, 1930 - R.S.C., Order 45, r. 1 - Order nisi made against insurance company-Appeal by company-Held, that at the time the order was made there was no attachable debt due from the company to the assured and therefore the order would be set aside.

UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY, LTD. v. H. A. MOON (REVENUE OFFICER).

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 404
Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, Sects. 5, 6 (3) (b)-Derating -Freight-transport hereditaments - Cold storage premises on river front included in special list-Apportionment -Mixed law and fact-Held, dismissing appeal by cold storage against apportionment, that the evidence showed that some part of the hereditament was "primarily occupied and used for warehousing merchandise not in the course of being transported" and that there should therefore be an apportionment -Guidance to Assessment Committee on apportionment.

THE "CANADIAN TRANSPORT."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 409
Collision-Damages - Reference - Motor vessel C V sunk in collision with steamship C T in River Parana- Agreed apportionment of blame: C V, 25 per cent.; C T, 75 per cent.-Loss of part cargo (quebracho logs) ex C V- Claim by plaintiff cargo-owners against C T - Refusal by owners of C V immediately to repair and carry out contract voyage - Substituted cargo shipped by plaintiffs-Claims against C T by plaintiffs (inter alia): (1) to recover value of cargo lost plus advance freight paid to C V; (2) for loss of use of cargo (interest on value); (3) for freight paid on substituted cargo- Value of cargo-Rate of exchange- Appeal by C T from judgment of President-Principles for assessment of damages-The Edison, 42 Ll.L.Rep. 23 -Held (1) that advance freight was not recoverable and that the value of the cargo lost must be based upon sterling converted from the value in pesos at the time the cargo was lost; (2) that interest was payable only on that cargo for which compensation had not been had; (3) that the claim for freight paid on substituted cargo was too remote- Appeal allowed.

THE "PORTIA."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 416
Collision between steamships Oakford and Portia in Woolwich Reach, River Thames - Oakford emerging from Prince Regent's Dock and turning down river; Portia hound up-Duty of Oakford under by-laws-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1926, Rule 34-Held, that the Oakford came out carefully and without obstructing the navigable channel; that she gave ample warning of her intended manoeuvres; and that the collision was due to the excessive speed of the Portia and to her failure to take off her way in time.

THE "CHR. KNUDSEN."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 423
Admiralty-Practice-Writ in rem-Barge A B sunk after collision with defendants' steamship C K in plaintiffs' dock -A B abandoned by her owners- Obstruction to dock-A B raised and removed by plaintiffs-Writ in rem issued by plaintiffs against C K- Alleged lack of jurisdiction-Motion by defendants to set aside-Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 22 (1) (a) (iv)-Held, that the plaintiffs' claim for expenses of removing, destroying lighting and buoying was a "claim for damage done by a ship" within the meaning of Sect. 22, and was recoverable in rem; and that therefore the defendants' motion failed.

LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHESTER & SON.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 425
Railways-Powers-Access to fish quays occupying space on plaintiffs' premises (Hull Docks) - Agreement between plaintiff railway company (as dock-owners) and defendant fish merchants -Transport of fish from docks -Whether plaintiffs entitled to impose conditions governing the use of motor vehicles for transport and to an injunction restraining the defendants from using road transport in certain circumstances - Prevention of congestion in docks-Consideration of plaintiffs' powers regarding the landing and sale of fish and of defendants' right of access at common law and by statute-Hull Docks Acts - Judgment - Formal declarations drawn up.

BRITISH TRAWLERS FEDERATION, LTD., AND OTHERS v. LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 427
Railways-Powers-Access to fish quay (Lowestoft) - Right of defendant railway company (owning quay) to impose upon plaintiffs (having business on defendants' quay) conditions governing the use of motor vehicles for transport of fish from quays - Prevention of congestion - Alleged obligation upon defendants to allow fish market on quay-Common law rights considered-"Fish" as non-customable goods-Whether rights affected by statute-Lowestoft Navigation Acts - Judgment - Formal declarations drawn up.

ANGLO-INTERNATIONAL BANK, LTD. v. GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 429
Contract - Indemnity - Agreement by plaintiffs to finance M Corporation (now in liquidation) in respect of hire purchase schemes-Policy issued by defendant insurance company insuring M Corporation against any loss in excess of £250 "arising within any single period covered by the said policy, which may be sustained through the non-payment of the instalments due by the hirers"-Letters of indemnity from defendants (reciting that defendants and the M Corporation had agreed that the benefit of the policy was to pass to plaintiffs) providing that "notwithstanding any of the clauses and conditions recited in such policy in the event of any instalments in excess of a total sum of £250 to the [M Corporation] and only when the losses so incurred have exceeded, during any single period covered by the said policy, the said sum of £250 under agreements not being met by the hirers and paid to you within 30 days of the due date, we will, within seven days of demand by you, pay you the amount so dishonoured without bringing into operation any of the clauses and conditions" of the policy-Construction -Ambiguity-Right of plaintiffs to recover from defendants moneys received from hirers by the M Corporation and not paid over by them to plaintiffs-Held, that the liability of the defendants depended upon two events: (1) default by a hirer; and (2) no payment over by the M Corporation; and that therefore the plaintiffs' claim under the letters of indemnity failed.

DUNPHY v. CROFT.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 435
Canada-Dominion Parliament-Extraterritorial jurisdiction-British North America Act, 1867-Customs Act of Canada, Revised Statutes, 1927, cap. 42, Sect. 151, as amended by 18 & 19 Geo. 5, cap. 16: "If any vessel is hovering in territorial waters of Canada, any officer may go on board such vessel and examine her cargo and may also examine the master or person in command upon oath touching the cargo and voyage and may bring the vessel into port . . . 'Territorial waters of Canada' shall mean the waters forming part of the territory of the Dominion of Canada and the waters adjacent to the Dominion within three marine miles thereof, in the case of any vessel, and within 12 marine miles thereof, in the case of any vessel registered in Canada"-Seizure by Customs officer (appellant) of respondent's vessel 1112 miles off Canadian coast-Validity of seizure-Held, that such legislation was within the legislative competence of the Dominion Parliament and that the seizure was therefore valid.

STEAMSHIP "SAN GIORGIO." (CLAIM OF SOCIETA PIEMONTESE PER L'INDUSTRIE DELLA GOMMA ED AFINI R. POLA & CO., OF MONCALIERI, TURIN.)

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 440
Prize-Condemnation-Contraband bound for enemy destination-Crown's undertaking discharged.

THE "WYNDHAM."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 441
Collision between steamship Braemar and steam trawler Wyndham off Vestmann Islands during fog-Speeds-Visibility -Look-out-Held, that the collision was solely due to the excessive speed of the Wyndham; and that therefore the Wyndham was alone to blame.

THE "COLIMA."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 444
Negligence-Bad berth-Plaintiffs' vessel C berthed in second defendants' yard- First defendants' vessel A berthed close to C-Contact between C and A- Damage - Subsequent attempts by second defendants to separate vessels by use of fender-Further damage- -Respective duties and liabilities- Whether vessels at owners' risk-Held, that the C was properly berthed; that the second defendants were responsible for berthing the A where she could not keep reasonably free from danger from contact with the C, even with proper attendance by her crew; and that they were also responsible for the damage arising from an improper use of the fender-Second defendants found alone to blame.

THE "ANDUTZ MENDI."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 444
Damages - Dragging of defendants' vessel-Damage to submarine cables- Admission of liability by vessel-Use of plaintiff's cable-repairing ship for 1212 days-Average cost per day- Registrar's report upheld.

H.M.S. "GLORIOUS."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 450
Collision between steamship Florida and H.M. aircraft carrier Glorious in Mediterranean during thick fog - Florida bound from Buenos Aires to Genoa; Glorious engaged in aircraft exercises-Respective duties-Collision Regulations, Art. 16: "Every vessel shall, in a fog . . . go at moderate speed, having regard to the existing circumstances and conditions. A steam vessel hearing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog signal of a vessel the position of which is not ascertained, shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her engines, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over"-Whether the fact that a number of aircraft were at risk in the air was a special circumstance within Art. 16, justifying a maintenance of speed-Held, that the words of exception in the rule referred to circumstances surrounding and affecting the navigation of the ship (the proximity or position or action of other ships) and did not refer to such outside influences as those in question; that the Florida was to blame for excessive speed, for failure to stop on hearing the whistle of the Glorious forward of her beam and for helm action in fog; and that the Glorious was also to blame for excessive speed and for failure to stop on hearing the whistle of the Florida forward of her beam-Apportionment: Florida, two-thirds; Glorious, one-third.

CAMMELL LAIRD & CO., LTD. v. MANGANESE BRONZE & BRASS COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 466
Contract-Breach-Supply by defendants of propeller for use in ship built by plaintiffs-Propeller too noisy for use in particular ship - Classification refused by Lloyd's Register-Rejection of propeller by plaintiffs-Acceptance of second of two further propellers subsequently supplied by defendants- Dispute as to cause of noise-Measure of damages-Claim by plaintiffs for extra expenses incurred-Counterclaim by defendants for price of extra propellers -Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sect. 14-Held, that the root cause of the trouble was that the blades were not properly shaped for their purpose; that the correspondence between the parties showed that the plaintiffs made known to the defendants by implication the particular purpose for which the propeller was required and in such a way as to show that the plaintiffs relied upon the defendants' skill and judgment; and that therefore the propeller was rightly rejected by the plaintiffs- Judgment for plaintiffs on claim and counterclaim.

GURNEY v. GRIMMER.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 481
Insurance-Reinsurance-Compromised or arranged total loss-Reinsurers "to pay only in the event of the total constructive compromised and/or arranged total loos of the vessel"-Stranding of vessel-Notice of abandonment given to insurers and not accepted - Subsequent settlement in full with owners on basis of constructive total loss plus a sum in respect of sue and labour charges-Claim by insurers against reinsurers on 100 per cent. basis-Held, that "arranged" meant no more than "compromised", and that as the insurers had settled with the owners for a constructive total loss they were not entitled to recover from their reinsurers for a "compromised and/or arranged total loss."

IN RE NATIONAL BENEFIT INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 484
Insurance-Reinsurance-Policies issued to applicants by N M Co. (in liquidation) -Statement in policies providing that liabilities of N M Co. were guaranteed by N B Co. (also in liquidation) - Loss under policies issued by N M Co. - Applicants' proof against N B Co. rejected by liquidator -Proof of guarantee-Held, that applicants had not established any agreement of guarantee by the N B Co. and were therefore not entitled to prove on that ground; but that the N B Co. were estopped by their conduct in allowing such policies to be issued with such indorsements from denying that the liabilities of the N M Co. were guaranteed by them; and that the applicants were accordingly entitled to prove in the winding-up of the N B Co.

GOLDING v. LONDON & EDINBURGH INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 487
Insurance (motor)-Stay of action-Claim by plaintiff to indemnity under policy - Denial of liability by insurance company - Alleged breach of policy conditions-Subsequent reinstatement of policy with £10 excess - Scott v. Avery clause - Whether company's denial of liability amounted to a repudiation of the whole policy- Held, that there was no complete repudiation by the company of the policy; and that as the plaintiff was still claiming under the policy, and as by the terms of the policy an award was a condition precedent to liability, the action must be stayed.

FRANCE v. PIDDINGTON (CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD., GARNISHEES).

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 491
Insurance (motor) - Garnishee order against insurance company-Judgment for damages obtained by plaintiff against assured-Damages not paid- Claim by plaintiff to garnishee debt alleged to be due under policy from company to assured - Denial of liability by company-Scott v. Avery clause - Order nisi granted - Held, following Israelson v. Dawson, 43 Ll.L.Rep. 401, that at the time the order was made there was no debt owing by the company to the assured and that therefore the order must be set aside.

THE "AGILITY."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 493
Negligent navigation-Collision between steamship and swing bridge at Selby, River Ouse-Claim by shipowners for damage to vessel-Counterclaim by defendant bridge-owners (1) against pilot and master of vessel for damage to bridge; (2) against shipowers for loss of tolls, &c.-Whether bridge was properly swung-Very narrow opening requiring careful navigation on part of steamship-Selby Bridge Act, 1791- Shipowners shall not "be answerable or responsible or liable to make satisfaction or to be sued for any damage or injury which shall be done to the said bridge . . ." - Held (as to the claim) that the bridge was properly swung; and that the collision was due to the excessive speed of the steamship; (as to the counterclaim) that the pilot and master were negligent in their navigation and that the bridge-owners were therefore entitled to judgment against the pilot and master in respect of damage to the bridge; that the Act exempted the shipowners only from liability in respect of actual damage to the bridge and that therefore the bridge-owners were entitled to recover from the shipowners any other consequential losses-Judgment for bridge-owners on claim and counterclaim.

THE "PASTIME."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 500
Collision between sailing barges Sir Richard and Pastime in River Medway - Sir Richard bound down; Pastime following behind-Sir Richard brought round head to wind-Sir Richard sunk -Look-out on Pastime-Duty of Sir Richard on port tack to keep out of way - Whether anchor of Pastime carried in improper position-Offer of "both to blame" by Sir Richard before drawing up of statement of claim -Held, that the vessels were equally to blame (the Sir Richard was under a duty to keep out of the way and the Pastime should have known that the Sir Richard had got to a point where she would have to turn about); and that the cause of the sinking of the Sir Richard was the impact with the stem and with the anchor of the Pastime- Sir Richard awarded costs incurred after delivery of statement of claim.

THE "WEST WALES."

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 504
Collision - Damages - Reference - Loss of use of warship-Occupation of Admiralty dock and use of crane during repairs-Objection by Admiralty to assessment of damages by Registrar - Principles to be applied - The Chekiang, 25 Ll.L.Rep. 173, discussed- Held, that the use of dock and crane necessarily involved expense; that the Admiralty in respect of loss of use of their warship were entitled to be compensated on the basis of actual out-of-pocket expenditure, depreciation and interest on capital value; and that, as it was not apparent from the Registrar's report that he had applied those principles, the report must be sent back.

CORRADO SOCIETA ANONIMA DI NAVIGAZIONE v. EXPORTHLEB.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 509
Charter-party - Holidays (Russia) - "Cargo to be loaded at the average rate of 450 tons . . . per weather working day . . . Sundays and holidays excepted . . ." - Dispatch money - Award - Findings that Russian law had established a continuous working week of seven days, 24 hours a day; that each day was worked by three eight-hour shifts; that on the day before a Sunday or holiday a workman's day consisted of not more than six hours and that to secure eight-hour shifts on those days a workman had to be remunerated at additional pay for two hours of each shift - Charterers' contention that "Sundays and holidays" covered the period in each Saturday shift beyond the requisite six hours working period (six hours in all)-Held, upholding the award, that neither Saturdays nor any part of Saturdays were holidays within the meaning of the charter-party.

ROSKILL v. COOK (TROLLOPE & COLLS, LTD., THIRD PARTIES).

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 511
Negligence-Fire-Damage to plaintiff's house - Whether due to escape of fire from fireplace in adjoining house occupied by defendant-Building contractors, employed by defendant to replace grate in party wall, joined as third parties-Conflicting theories as to cause of fire-Whether fire originated in wood block in party wall ignited from defendant's fire or in some defect in the electric installation in plaintiff's house - Onus of proof - Held, that the onus of proof was on the plaintiff; that, although in a civil action a plaintiff was not required to prove his case beyond, all reasonable doubt, where, as here, the choice lay between possible though improbable theories, it was not sufficient for the plaintiff's case that his theory was a little less improbable than the defendant's; and that, as the plaintiff had not satisfactorily proved that the damage was due to the fire in defendant's grate or to any negligence of the third parties, the claim must be dismissed.

GREEN STAR SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD., v. LONDON ASSURANCE AND OTHERS.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 523
Insurance (marine)-General average expenditure - Fire on board steamship Andree at New York involving general average expenditure by owners-Voyage proceeded with after repairs-Collision -Voyage abandoned at Philadelphia after further general average expenditure-(1) Policy covering hull and machinery (incorporating Institute Time Clauses)-(2) Policy taken out after fire but before collision covering cargo's proportion of general average disbursements-Vessel also insured with club covering cargo's proportion of general average not otherwise recoverable-York-Antwerp Rules, 1890-By law of Philadelphia owners of property not liable to pay more than salved value - Salved value less than cargo expenditure-Apportionment of balance between various risks - Judgment against hull underwriters and special risk underwriters for respective proportions recoverable under policies -Judgment for club-Dispute as to sums due - Whether affected by American decision concerning the same vessel and circumstances - Held, that the average statement was correctly drawn up in accordance with York-Antwerp Rules, 1890, and that American law did not apply.

Copyright © 2025 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.