i-law.com

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

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 1

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 purposes 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

ASSOCIATION OF MASTER LIGHTERMEN & BARGE OWNERS (PORT OF LONDON) v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 6

Railways-Charges-Undue preference- Wharf age services rendered by respondent railway company at their quays and wharves-Introduction of inclusive rates covering lighterage by accredited agents and respondents' services-Lower wharfage rates charged to accredited agents than to claimants, who represented the independent lightermen-Application by claimants for a declaration that such inclusive charge made by railway company to their accredited agents constituted an undue preference-Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, Sect. 17: "(1) . . . The burden of proving that such lower charge or difference in treatment does not amount to an undue preference shall lie on the railway company. (2) In deciding whether a lower charge or difference in treatment does or does not amount to an undue preference, the Court . . . may, so far as they think reasonable, in addition to any other considerations affecting the case, take into consideration whether such lower charge or difference in treatment is necessary for the purpose of securing in the interests of the public the traffic in respect of which it is made" -Decision of Rly. & C.C. that assuming there was a preference within the terms of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts the railway company had justified it; and that therefore the application must be dismissed-Appeal-Whether Court should have taken into consideration as a dominant factor the interests of the railway company-Railways Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, Sect. 90-Legality of charge

THE "ERICUS."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 19

Salvage - Services rendered by tugs Headman, Autocrat and Scotsman to steamship Ericus aground on Skitter Sand River Humber-Grounding on ebb tide-Failure of first attempt by all three tugs to refloat - Vessel refloated on flood tide by Headman and Autocrat-Salvage services by Scotsman denied

BROOKE v. CROWN.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 23

Ship - Requisition of ex-Baltic vessels during war-Compensation-Petition of right-Dispute as to rate of freight -Whether entitled to full market rates -Judgment in petitioner's favour allowing him limited rate of freight -Alleged concealment and fraud by Crown of evidence of market rates of freight obtainable for vessels in 1918 -Petitioner ordered to file affidavit giving particulars of allegations

PIERCE v. WOOD.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 26

Sale of ship-Breach of warranty-Purchase of yacht by plaintiff from defendant -Claim by plaintiff for damages -Counterclaim by defendant for balance of price-Vessel at Whitstable -To be delivered at Burnham-Plaintiff's reliance on defendant's skill and judgment-Allegation that vessel was unseaworthy-Passing of property- Evidence that plaintiff took possession at Whitstable-Vessel, with plaintiff on board, navigated by defendant to Burnham - Grounding on voyage - Vessel subsequently discovered to be damaged

STEWART & CRAIG v. GALE.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 29

Repairs to ship-Claim for payment by repairers against insurance broker- Repairs executed upon instructions of E & Co., managers for the ship - Insurance effected, also upon instructions of E & Co., through defender with underwriters-Repairs covered by insurance - Payment of pursuers' account-Undertaking by defender to pursuers: "We beg to inform you, by request of [E. & Co.] that they have authorised us to pay over to you direct the amounts collected from underwriters in respect of this claim, and we shall accordingly do so. We may say that we wrote yesterday to arrange with underwriters to make a payment to account of the claim, in respect of your repairs account. We have yet to hear from them in reply, but we have no doubt that our proposal will be agreed to, and we shall take all steps to secure prompt settlement. You, will appreciate that such a settlement must take its usual course, but we shall do all possible to avoid delay"-Construction -Obligation imposed

MAY AND OTHERS v. HAMBURG-AMERIKANISCHE PACKETFAHRT A/G. (THE "ISIS").*

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 35

General average - Unseaworthiness - Harter Act-Jason clause-Error in navigation - Vessel on voyage from Pacific coast ports to Bremen and Hamburg-Seaworthy at commencement of voyage-Stranding in River Weser before reaching Bremen-Vessel towed to Bremen where she discharged her Bremen cargo-Examination of damage-Report that rudder stock was twisted, but that blade was intact- Lack of due diligence in failing to discover that blade was in fact dam aged-Vessel ordered to Hamburg by owners' marine superintendent without effecting repairs-Proceeds in tow of tugs and with rudder lashed- Further grounding owing to negligent navigation-Deposit by cargo-owners as security for payment of general average contributions to the sacrifices and expenses due to both strandings- Contention by assignees of cargo-owners that they were not liable to contribute in respect of the second stranding-Claim to recover deposit

THE "BRANKSOME HALL."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 43

Negligence - Breaking adrift of defendants' steamer - Collision with plaintiffs' lighter, breaking her adrift -Claim by plaintiffs for damages- Faulty swivel assembly in defendant vessel's moorings-Res ipsa loquitur -Onus of proof-Proving House certificate that assembly "has been tested . . . and subsequently examined and did not show any defect or permanent deformation" - Finding of learned Judge of M. & C.L. Ct. that defendants had discharged the onus upon them of proving that the damage was due to inevitable accident

THE "WHIPPINGHAM."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 49

Salvage - Services rendered by tug Irishman to paddle steamship Whippingham in Cowes Roads during regatta-Gale and tide in same direction -Steamer put in difficulties with adjacent yachts by action of another vessel-Attempt to avoid danger by dropping anchor-Risk of further difficulties with consequent damage and/or damage claims-Steamer held by tug to enable anchor to be raised and towed to place of safety-Whole service occupying 45 minutes-Towage or salvage

VERSICHERUNGS UND TRANSPORT A/G. DAUGAVA v. HENDERSON; SAME v. CAMPBELL.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 54

Fire insurance - Reinsurance - Loss - Payment by plaintiffs under insurance policy covering certain buildings in Riga-Claims by plaintiffs under reinsurance policies issued by defendants H and C (Lloyd's underwriters)- Reinsurance effected through K & M, insurance brokers of Danzig-Defence: misrepresentation and concealment as to contents of buildings-Defendants informed that buildings would be used for the storage, if any, of noncombustible goods-Buildings in fact used for storage of flax-Duty to disclose-Relationship between parties

BIBBY & SONS, LTD. v. RUSSO-BRITISH GRAIN EXPORT CO., LTD.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 61

Sale of goods - Over-payment - Short delivery-Claim by buyers (plaintiffs to be repaid-Purchase of cargoes of cotton seed from defendants-Payment against provisional invoice- Adjustment between parties of difference between price paid against documents and amount ascertained on outturn - Cargo not weighed on discharge - Stored in warehouse - Notional outturn weight based on shipping weights less 14 per cent.- Cargo subsequently weighed and found to be 10 per cent. less than shipping weights - Calculation of shipping weights

SMITH & SON v. EAGLE, STAR & BRITISH DOMINIONS INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 67

Workmen's compensation insurance - Industrial disease - Silicosis - Cover under policy from June 17, 1927, to June 17, 1930, against liability under Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of "any personal injury or disease . . . which, at any time or times during the continuance of this policy, shall be sustained or contracted by any workman . . ."-Letter of Sept. 28, 1927, extending policy to cover "any liability . . . in connection with any claim made by your employees in respect of silicosis . . ."-Mar. 31, 1928: workman entered assured's employment as file cutter and came under scheme-June 16, 1930: workman ceased work as file cutter and left scheme - Oct. 31, 1931: workman left assured's employment-Dec. 30, 1932: workman certified disabled from silicosis accompanied by tuberculosis, total disablement dating from July 18, 1932 - Assured liable under scheme - Claim to be indemnified by insurance company-Disease "contracted by a gradual process"-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sects. 43, 47- Metal Grinding Industries (Silicosis) Scheme, 1927, Sects. 4, 5, 9 and 11-

THE "ST. ENDELLION."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 73

Collision between sailing barge Gertrude May and steam trawler St. Endellion off Grimsby Royal Dock entrance in dense fog-Gertrude May at anchor- St. Endellion making for Fish Dock, Grimsby - Whether Gertrude May anchored in prohibited area-Allegation that she was not ringing her bell

THE "GASTELU."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 76

Collision between steamships Halesius and Gastelu off Lisbon during fog - Halesius northward, Gastelu southward, bound-Speeds-Helm action- Respective duties under Collision Regulations

GREEN AND OTHERS v. WOODS.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 79

Contract - Hire of ship - Breach of warranty of seaworthiness or condition -Hire by plaintiffs from defendant of motor cruiser to tour Norfolk Broads -Short cruise following demonstration by defendant's representative of working of vessel - Return to quay - Determination to proceed-Explosion following switching on of engine- Plaintiffs injured - Claim - Defence that vessel was seaworthy; and that explosion was due to plaintiffs' negligence in failing to turn off petrol supply until half an hour after returning from short cruise

UNITED MOLASSES COMPANY (THE "ATHELTARN") v. LEES (THE "SUCCESSION") ET E CONTRA.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 83

Collision between steamship Atheltarn and steam trawler Succession in North Sea -Vessels on crossing courses, with Succession the give-way vessel - Dispute as to state of weather-Plea of Atheltarn: that Art. 19 applied- plea of Succession: that visibility was of such a character, owing to falling snow, that Art. 16 applied

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

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 91

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 plaintiffs 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 were binding on the defendants, if at all - Held, by MacKinnon, J., 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 overlying timber; as to (2), that the defendants were entitled iu each parcel of any, particular length of pro ps to receive a fair range of top diameters approximating 50 per cent. thick and 50 per cent. thin; 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.

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

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 102

Railways-Powers-Access to fish markets (Lowestoft)-Right of defendant railway company (statutory owners of markets) to impose upon plaintiffs (representing the trawl fishing industry in Lowestoft) conditions governing the use of motor vehicles for transport of fish from markets-Declarations claimed by plaintiffs that they were entitled to remove their fish landed or purchased at the market by the usual commercial means, including motors or other vehicles, and that the defendants were not entitled to impose any condition upon the use of such vehicles as to the place to which the fish were to be taken and at which they were to be consumed-Lowestoft Navigation Acts-Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, Sect. 33: "Upon payment of the rates . . . the harbour, dock, and pier shall be open to all persons for the shipping and unshipping of goods and the embarking and landing of passengers"- Meaning of "unshipping"-Implied public right to take goods off the dock premises by usual commercial methods

DAMPSKIBS. AKTIES. LALY v. ARCOS, LTD., AND EXPORTLES.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 117

Practice - Discovery of documents - Charter-party - Claim by plaintiff shipowners for demurrage-Ice clause - Alleged failure of defendant charterers to provide adequate icebreaker assistance-Interlocutories- List of documents ordered-List put in by defendants containing extracts from icebreaker logbooks-Leave to amend defence given defendants on terms that logbooks were produced- Order of Judge upholding plaintiffs' application that discovery should also be given of documents mentioned in logbooks-R.S.C., Order 31, rr. 14, 19A

THE "KEJSERINDE DAGMAR."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 120

Salvage-Services rendered in fine weather by tugs Guardsman, Irishman, Prizeman and Mabel and by pilot to Danish steamer Kejserinde Dagmar stranded on Hull Middle Sand, River Humber -Dangerous sands-Vessel listed- Part of deck cargo shot overboard- Drift up river for three miles- Retrieved by Mabel-Vessel refloated by Guardsman, Irishman and Prizeman and taken to Alexandra Dock outer pier - Short service - Pilot's claim settled for £101 10s.

THE "BRITANNIA" AND THE "THAMES VI."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 127

Negligent navigation-Damage to plaintiffs' piling works at Waterloo Bridge, River Thames, by lighter Thames VI (in tow of tug Britannia)-Tug safely through arch - Failure of tow to negotiate arch-Lighter liable under towage contract for any negligence of tug - Lighter's plea of inevitable accident-Onus of proof on lighter

HAASE v. EVANS.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 131

Insurance - "All risks" - Cover by defendant (Lloyd's underwriter) of pictures, objets d'art, &c., stored at plaintiff's office-Taken from premises before policy issued - Denial of liability on grounds (inter alia) of non-disclosure and excess valuation -Expert evidence of values

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

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 151

Contract - Indemnity - Agreement by plaintiffs to finance M Corporation (now in liquidation) in respect of hirepurchase 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 - Measure of defendants' liability-"Amount so dishonoured"

EDWARDS v. NEWTON.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 155

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff's employee engaged in unloading cargo from defendant's vessel -Collapse of ship's derrick owing to wire support giving way - Workmen's compensation paid by plaintiff -Claim to be indemnified by defendant - Evidence of previous survey - Res ipsa loquitur

MONK v. WARBEY AND OTHERS.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 157

Motor insurance - Third party risks - Claim by plaintiff in respect of personal injuries sustained in motor accident-W's car lent to K and driven by M-Negligence of K and M -W, K and M joined as defendants- Responsibility of W-Policy taken out by W covering himself against third party risks-K and M not covered- Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 35- Breach of statutory duty by W- Whether breach satisfied by penalty payable under Sect. 35

OCEANIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD. v. EVANS.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 159

Marine insurance - Removal of wreck- Total loss of plaintiffs' vessel C-Contract by P & A to remove wreck- Policy issued by defendant "is only to cover [P & A's] liability to [plaintiffs] under contract . . . and to indemnify [plaintiffs] against any claims made by the Cork Harbour Commissioners or any other parties by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by [P & A] in relation to the removal of the wreck"- Alleged failure of P & A to implement contract-Sums paid to other contractors by Cork Harbour Commissioners, acting under statutory powers, to complete demolition-Recovered from plaintiffs-Right of plaintiffs to be indemnified under policy - Further claim by Cork Harbour Commissioners for expenses of lighting and buoying

NATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY v. "ATHELVISCOUNT" (OWNERS).

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 164

Bill of lading - Shipment of Rumanian export type kerosene and fuel oil - Charter by plaintiffs (buyers of oil) of defendants' steamer Athelviscount- Loading of vessel by pipe-line-Bills of lading signed by master: "Shipped in good order and condition . . . Weight, quantity and quality unknown to me"-Kerosene delivered discoloured - Claim by charterers for damages-Disputed cause of discoloration - Arbitration - Case stated - Findings of umpire that the tanks, pipes and pumps were cleaned in accordance with the terms of the charter-party before any oil was loaded; that the kerosene was not contaminated by fuel oil in the Athelviscount; that the kerosene was loaded by two different shippers and that their shipments were mixed in the vessel's tanks; that the certificate of analysis of kerosene taken from shore tanks, drawn up by charterers' representative, did not specify which shipper's kerosene was analysed nor did it state that the kerosene was taken from any shore tank from which the Athelviscount was loaded; that it was not possible for the master to determine the quality of the kerosene as it was being pumped into the vessel's tanks (in signing the bills of lading describing the kerosene as Rumanian export type kerosene he relied upon the description given by the shippers or by charterers' representative and qualified his description by the words "quality unknown"); that in signing a statement as to discoloration, drawn up by experts appointed by the charterers' representative, the master had no means of knowing whether the kerosene loaded from the particular shore tanks was good quality and colour water white except from what he was told by the shippers or by the charterers' representative; and that the shipowners, on the facts as above stated, were not estopped by reason of the statements contained in the bills of lading from denying that the kerosene as delivered to the ship was Rumanian export type kerosene in good order and condition - Defect of quality or condition - Request by charterers that award be remitted for the adduction of further evidence as to discoloration -Charterers out of time

STEWART & CRAIG v. GALE.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 171

Practice-Leave to appeal to House of Lords against interlocutory judgment- Repairs to ship-Claim for payment by repairers against insurance broker - Repairs executed upon instructions of E & Co., managers for the ship - Insurance effected, also upon instructions of E & Co., through defender with underwriters-Repairs covered by insurance -Payment of pursuers' account

THE "EDISON."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 175

Practice-Costs-Collision between plaintiffs' dredger Liesbosch and defendants' steamship Edison-Edison to blame-Reference to assess damages- Finding of Court of Appeal and House of Lords that damages were assessed on wrong basis-Further reference -Costs of first reference-Whether defendants entitled to costs incurred by them in opposing plaintiffs' original claim-Allowed by taxing officer-Disallowed by learned Judge-Appeal by defendants-R.S.C., Order 65, r. 27, sub. rr. (20), (29)

BADCOCK, LTD. v. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 180

Rivers - Foreshore - Moorings - Title - Plaintiffs' occupation of land on bank of River Lea for over sixty years - Erection of wharves-Moorings laid down in foreshore-Moorings in position for nearly sixty years-Acquisition by defendants under Royal Victoria and Other Docks Approaches (Improvement) Act, 1929 - Compensation payable-Whether plaintiffs had established any right or interest in the foreshore or any title to the moorings other than the ownership of the materials sunk in the foreshore and the chains attached thereto

THE "ROYAL CROWN."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 183

THE "RAYJOHN" AND THE "BRERETON."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 188

Collision between plaintiffs' steamship Raranga and first defendants' motor barge Rayjohn in Gallions Reach, River Thames - Raranga, inward bound to Royal Albert Dock, turning in river; Rayjohn and second defendants' steamship Brereton also inward bound - Allegation by Rayjohn that she sheered into the Raranga owing to the Brereton passing the Rayjohn too closely-Raranga admittedly not liable -Dispute as to where Brereton passed Rayjohn

THE "DARTFORD."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 193

Collision between Greek steamship Meandros and British steamship Dartford off St. Catherine's Point, in dense fog-Meandros bound up Channel; Dartford bound down Channel- Meandros sunk-Duty of vessels in fog

THE "ARPAD."

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 202

Bill of lading-Short delivery (wheat)- Conversion - Damages - Purchase by plaintiffs of wheat shipped in defendants' vessel - Resale - Non-delivery by defendants of 47 tons - Assessment of damages by Registrar - Motion by defendants in objection to Registrar's report-Market value-Evidence that plaintiffs could not have bought similar wheat in the open market to replace the wheat short delivered - Restitutio in integrum - Effect of prepayment

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

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 209

Contract-Breach-Supply by defendants of propeller for use in ship built by plaintiffs under the superintendence and to the reasonable satisfaction of the owners' representative and to be classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's-Propeller contract: "Engines No. 972. Propeller of special Parsons manganese bronze. One four-bladed, right hand solid propeller, to be 16 ft., diameter with a pitch of 11 ft., and to have a total developed area of 80 sq. ft. in four blades. Maximum b.h.p. 2150 at 105 revolutions per minute. Propeller to be supplied finished machined complete and polished all over in highest class style, with boss bored; facts; and key-way cut to our template, edges brought up to fine lines, true to pitch; ready for fitting to shaft on delivery. Please notify us in good time when ready for templates. Copy of pitch readings to be sent to us for our information. Sweeps, boards, &c., to be supplied by you. For further particulars see print No. 206699, a copy of which you have. To be guaranteed against defective material and workmanship for a period of six calendar months after handing over of vessel to owners. To be to the entire satisfaction of the owners' representative and ourselves" - Propeller too noisy at low speeds for use in particular ship fitted with Diesel engines -Refusal by Lloyd's Register to give unqualified class-Rejection of propeller by plaintiffs-Acceptance of second of two further propellers subsequently supplied by defendants-Dispute as to cause of noise-Claim by plaintiffs for extra expenses incurred-Counterclaim by defendants for price of extra propellers -Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sect. 14 (1), (2)

BRITISH STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION v. CHAPMAN & SON.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 228

Steamship association - Rules - Construction - Settlement of action brought against underwriters by shipowners under protection of Association in respect of constructive total loss of their vessel-Terms of settlement: Underwriters to pay lump sum, "each side to pay their own costs"-Claim by Association against shipowners that the latter were liable under Rule 23 of the Association's rules to contribute towards costs incurred in action - Rule 23: "All moneys recovered for any member shall be paid over to him without deduction of any commission or other sum, except where a pending proceeding has been settled or compromised for a lump sum which includes costs, or without any provision being made for the payment of costs, in either of which events the member shall suffer such deduction or make such payment as may be fixed by the directors in respect of costs"-Arbitration -Award that Rule 23 did not apply - Ambiguity - Estoppel

PIDDINGTON v. CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 235

Motor insurance - Policy - Conditions - Accident - Damages awarded against assured - Claim to be indemnified by insurance company - Car carrying laths for assured's garden - Pleasure trip during which assured proposed to use laths in making measurements which might possibly assist some proposed future business-Laths in fact not used or in any way responsible for accident - Repudiation of liability by insurance company on grounds: (1) that the car was being used at the time of the accident for other than private pleasure purposes; (2) that the car was conveying goods other than personal luggage

BURNETT STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. OLIVIER & CO., LTD.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 238

Charter-party - Demurrage - Notice of readiness-Vessel, loading at Antwerp, "having liberty to take a cargo for owner's benefit," to proceed to and load cargo from "Smyrna, Mitylene, Crete, Jaffa or Alexandria, three ports only, after discharging at Istanbul en route for Beirut and Alexandria to discharge the balance of her cargo loaded at Antwerp"-"Lay days to commence on the day following notice of readiness to load, provided such notice be given not later than 3 p.m."-Loading of cargo for charterers at various ports in Crete and at Alexandria-Whether notice of readiness was necessary at each port of loading

IN RE SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 48 Ll L Rep 241

Insurance company - Winding-up - Statutory deposit with Accountant-General (in accordance with the provisions of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as amended by Sect. 42 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930) in respect of "motor vehicle insurance business"- Applicability-Whether forming part of the general assets of the company- Summons by liquidator - Assurance Companies Act, 1909, Sects. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 32-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 35, 36, 37, 42, 43

Lloyd's Law Reports