i-law.com

WILLIAM CORY & SON, LTD. v. DORMAN, LONG & CO., LTD. (THE "TURK.")

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Limitation of liability-Collision between barge and cofferdam - Collapse of cofferdam-Negligence of barge-Contention by plaintiffs that they were bailees for hire or charterers by demise of the barge, who had contracted to take over the sole charge and management thereof and were responsible for its navigation, manning and equipment -Barge in ownership of lighterage company, subsidiary to plaintiff company-Allegation by plaintiffs that they had entered into a verbal agreement with the lighterage company whereby all the barges owned by the lighterage company were to be handed over to the plaintiffs and operated by them in consideration (inter alia) of the trading results of lighterage, &c., accruing to the lighterage company- Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, Sect. 71 -Merchant Shipping Act, 1921, Sect. 1 (2). Charter-party-Transfer of rights in ship -Doubt expressed whether rights can be transferred by oral agreement.

BROOKE MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LTD. v. RICHARDS.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 8

Contract - Supply of ship's engines - -Purchase of vessel without engines by defendant-Claim by plaintiffs for cost of installation of engines supplied by them-Whether contract carried out -Counterclaim by defendant-Appeal by defendant from judgment of learned County Court Judge in plaintiffs' favour - Alleged consideration by Judge of letters written "without prejudice" with view to settlement of dispute-Whether substantial wrong or miscarriage occasioned - R.S.C., Order 39, r. 6.

MORLEY v. MOORE.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 10

Motor insurance-"Knock for knock" agreement-Plaintiff's and defendant's cars in collision-Damage to plaintiff's car-"Knock for knock" agreement between insurers-Plaintiff indemnified by his insurance company under policy in respect of car damage (less £5 under excess clause)-Subsequent claim for full damages brought by plaintiff against defendant in County Court-Contention by defendant that as the plaintiff had been indemnified under his policy and it had been indicated to him by his insurance company that no claim should be made against the defendant, no cause of action lay-Position of assured considered-Subrogation.

THE "TRES."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 16

Salvage-Services rendered by motor boat Rose Marie to Norwegian steamship Tres off the Goodwin Sands in fog- Tres at anchor in damaged condition after being in collision-Position of Tres-Tres boarded by crew of Rose Marie and taken into Dover Harbour -Contention by Tres that no salvage services were rendered; that she was anchored in a safe position; that she was not in danger by reason of her condition; and that she received no salvage assistance from the Rose Marie.

SILCOCK & SONS, LTD. v. MARITIME LIGHTERAGE COMPANY (J. R. FRANCIS & CO.), LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 21

Unseaworthiness-Barge-Employment of defendants' barge for carriage of plaintiffs' cargo of bran from steamship in Victoria Dock to Silvertown- Barge loaded alongside steamship on Aug. 7 and 8 and taken by tug to plaintiffs' berth at Silvertown, arriving there at about 2 a.m. on Aug. 9-Discovery at 5 30 a.m. that barge had taken in considerable quantity of water and that cargo was seriously damaged- Barge engaged under terms of Thames Lighterage Clause - Contention by plaintiffs that vessel was unseaworthy at commencement of loading-Contention by defendants that barge must have sustained damage at plaintiffs' berth-Onus of proof-Evidence of probable rate of leakage.

STARKEY v. HALL.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 24

Road Traffic Act, 1930-Production of certificate of insurance-Purchase of car by appellant on hire-purchase terms through finance company-Premium of policy also paid by finance company- Proposal form signed by appellant- Policy and certificate of insurance retained by finance company until car fully paid for-Request made to appellant by constable to produce certificate - Certificate subsequently produced by finance company-No production "in person"-Evidence that certificate had never been in appellant's possession - Appeal against conviction by Justices on information charging appellant with having unlawfully used a motor car without having in force in relation to its user a policy or security in respect of third-party risks complying with the requirements of Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1930-Sect. 35 (1), (2), 36 (1), (5), 40 (1).

SHOOT v. HILL.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 29

Insurance - Jewellers' block policy - Burglary - Fire - Claim by plaintiff under policy-Allegation that premises were entered and contents stolen and that part of the remaining stock had been damaged by fire-Contentions by defendant underwriters: that no burglary in fact took place; that assuming there was a burglary, the claim was knowingly exaggerated and fraudulent; and that two conditions precedent of the policy had not been fulfilled by the plaintiff in that (a) no "proper stock and account books in which all sales and purchases are recorded" were kept, and (b) the burglar alarm which the policy conditions required had not been put into full and proper operation-Onus of proof.

KNOLLER AND ANOTHER v. EVANS.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 40

DRYSDALE v. NEW ERA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 45

Shipmaster-Dismissal without notice- Claim for six months' wages in lieu of notice or alternatively for damages for wrongful dismissal-Contention by defendant shipowners that they were justified in summarily dismissing the plaintiff on the grounds (inter alia) that he drank too much; that he neglected his duties as master; and that he was extravagant and spent too much on stores-Evidence of fellow officers of habitual drinking and of the effect upon his duties as master- Counterclaim by shipowners in respect of over-victualling.

FURNESS, WITHY & CO., LTD. v. DUDER.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 52

Marine insurance-Running down clause- Collision between plaintiffs' steamship and tug employed by plaintiffs under towage contract-Collision solely due to negligence of tug - Admitted liability of steamship to tug under contract-Claim by plaintiffs under policy taken out with defendant containing running down clause-"And it is further agreed, that if the ship hereby insured shall come into collision with any other ship or vessel, and the assured and/or charterers shall in consequence thereof become liable to pay, and shall pay by way of damages to any other person or persons any sum or sums not exceeding in respect of any one such collision the value of the ship hereby insured we will pay the assured and/or charterers such proportion of such sum or sums so paid as our subscription bears to the policy value of the ship hereby insured" -Whether clause covered plaintiffs' liability to tug under towage contract.

KULUKUNDIS AND OTHERS v. NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 55

Marine insurance-Freight-Total loss- Policy covering "chartered freight and/or freight"-Cargo loaded for U.K. under charter providing for lump sum freight of £8000-Stranding of vessel during chartered voyage-Vessel valued under her hull policies at £25,000, to pay £7500 in event of total loss-Salvage agreement entered into by master with salvage company on "no cure no pay" terms-Notice of abandonment subsequently given to underwriters, hull underwriters agreeing to settle for £7500 and to undertake all liabilities for which vessel was answerable -Cargo-owners notified that adventure at an end-Total loss paid by cargo underwriters-Ship and cargo surrendered by underwriters to salvors (ship being temporarily repaired by salvors, part cargo taken in repaired vessel to Rotterdam, and vessel sold there by salvors for breaking up) -Claim by shipowners for total loss under freight policy-Institute Voyage Clauses (Freight): "(4) In the event of the total loss, whether absolute or constructive, of the vessel, the amount underwritten by this policy shall be paid in full, whether the vessel be fully or only partly loaded or in ballast, chartered or unchartered. (5) In ascertaining whether the vessel is a constructive total loss the insured value in the policies on ship shall be taken as the repaired value and nothing in respect of the damaged or break-up value of the vessel or wreck shall be taken into account"-Contention by plaintiff shipowners that there was a total loss of freight which necessarily arose from the constructive total loss of cargo or ship; further, that they were entitled to recover because the charter voyage was frustrated by reason of the fact that it had become unremunerative to continue it-Denial by defendant insurers that there was a constructive total loss of ship or cargo.

THE "PEMBROKESHIRE."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 77

Negligent navigation-"Putting by"- Damage to plaintiffs' steamship Otterpool by grounding in Barking Reach, River Thames-Otterpool bound up river; defendants' steamship Pembrokeshire also bound up river ahead of Otterpool-Flood tide-Grounding of Pembrokeshire on north shore-Allegation by Otterpool that Pembrokeshire failed to give the prescribed signals indicating that she was aground; and that owing to the presence of a dredger moored opposite the place of the Pembrokeshire's grounding the Otterpool was obliged to turn with her head to the north, to take the ground and to swing round and go up river stern first in order safely to pass between the dredger and the Pembrokeshire-Claim by Otterpool against Pembrokeshire for damage sustained in so grounding- Contention by Pembrokeshire that she gave the prescribed warnings; alternatively, that if she was negligent in failing to give proper warning, that negligence was not the cause of the damage complained of-Dispute as to width of channel available for Otterpool and as to relative positions of Pembrokeshire and dredger-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934, Rules 16, 25.

HAWKINGS v. THAMES STEVEDORING COMPANY, LTD. (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) AND UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 83

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by workman employed by C.I. Co.-Workman engaged in insulation work in motor vessel Tuscan Star-Fall from shelter deck into hold-Shore gang engaged by stevedoring company also employed on board in fitting vessel ready for sea-Claim by workman against stevedoring company and against shipowners - Whether shore gang in employ of stevedoring company or shipowners-Allegation that hatch cover was off and that hatch was inadequately fenced and insufficiently lighted-Evidence of position of lifeline and of absence of light at time of accident-Whether process of unloading completed-Duty of stevedoring company and shipowners at common law and under Docks Regulations, 1934- Cause of accident-Whether plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence- Docks Regulations, 1934, Regulations 12, 37-Definition of "processes."

GREAVES v. DRYSDALE.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 95

Burglary insurance-Loss-Claim under policy-Large quantity of jewellery and cash stolen from pawnbroker's premises during week-end-"No claim to attach to this policy when the loss is occasioned by members of the assured's staff or household or inmates of the above-mentioned premises"-Premises occupied by members of assured's staff -Onus of proof of loss-Evidence of members of assured's staff-Finding of Branson, J., that the defendant had discharged the onus of showing that the theft was "occasioned by members of the assured's staff or household or inmates" of the premises.

THE "ROCKABILL."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 106

Collision between steamships King Orry and Rockabill in River Mersey- Plaintiffs' vessel King Orry leaving Prince's Landing Stage bound north; first defendants' vessel Rockabill coming out of Prince's Half-tide Dock entrance into river-Whether King Orry under way before Rockabill started ahead from dock entrance-Information given to Rockabill by dockmaster, employee of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, second defendants, that it was all clear for the Rockabill to proceed into river-Knowledge of master of Rockabill of instructions issued to Harbour Board's employees that information should be given to masters of vessels about to enter river of obstructions to the north-Duty of master to keep good look-out to south- Whether direction given by dockmaster amounted to an order to enter river- Failure of second defendants to observe the movements of the King Orry-Look-outs -Speeds-Claim by plaintiffs against both defendants-Counterclaim by first defendants against second defendants.

MOOR LINE, LTD. v. MANGANEXPORT G.m.b.H.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 114

Charter-party-Lay days-Commencement -Provisions of charter: "(2) That the said ship . . . shall . . . proceed with all convenient speed to Nicolaieff or Poti as ordered as per Clause 36 and there load always afloat in the customary manner, in usual turn with other steamers loading ore for account of same charterers, when, where and as soon as ordered by shipper's agent, a full and complete cargo of ore . . . (6) Time for loading to count from 6 a.m. after the ship is reported and ready, and in free pratique (whether in berth or not) in accordance with Clause 2. . . . (10) . . . Lay days are not to commence to count before June 10, 1934, unless loading sooner commenced. (36) Orders for port of loading to be given at Istanbul within six working hours from the handing in by the captain of notice of his arrival at Istanbul. Any detention over and above six working hours to count as lay days, Sundays and holidays excepted. In any case charterers are not obliged to give orders earlier than three days before commencement of lay days. . . ." Dispute as to when lay days commenced to run -Arbitration-Case stated under Arbitration Act, 1934, Sect. 9 (1) (a)- Contention by shipowners that lay days commenced at 6 a.m., after vessel had arrived at her loading port, was in free pratique, and had given notice of readiness, even though she had not got to her berth-Contention by charterers that lay days did not commence until vessel came on turn.

LONDON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. INVINCIBLE POLICIES, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 119

Insurance-Agreement between companies -Defendant company formed for purpose of placing on market policy underwritten by plaintiff company-Defendants entitled to brokerage commission in respect of business effected by them or through agents appointed by them- -Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for money alleged to have been received on plaintiffs' behalf-Claim by defendants to set off commission alleged to have been lost owing to breaches of agreement by plaintiffs-Suggestion that plaintiff company had approached defendant company's clients direct- Preliminary issue for Court as to terms of agreement as alleged by defendants.

HOWARD v. FURNESS-HOULDER ARGENTINE LINES, LTD., AND A. & R. BROWN, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 121

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by electric welder engaged in repair work on board first defendants' steamship El Uruguayo-Escape of steam owing to faulty boiler valve-Discovery that valve had been wrongly assembled, the bridge having been fitted upside-down -Evidence that boiler had a few months previously been stripped and reassembled by second defendants, marine engineers, under contract with first defendants-Claim against both defendants-Whether shipowners responsible for escape of steam under doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher-Duty of first defendants towards invitees- Suggestion that drainage system was defective-Whether first defendants knew or should have known of danger from valve-Responsibility of second defendants-Contention that there was lack of care and skill on their part- Whether plaintiff prevented from recovering from second defendants on the ground that there was no privity of contract between them.

LATVIJAS BANKA (BANK OF LATVIA) v. ADAMS.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 133

Marine insurance-Practice-Affidavit of ship's papers-Claim by foreign corporation against English underwriter -Delay in prosecution of action -Order of C.A. that action should be dismissed unless a complete and satisfactory affidavit was filed within 28 days of order-Claim subsequently dismissed by Branson, J., on ground that order had not been complied with -Appeal.

UNION-CASTLE MAIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. HOUSTON LINE (LONDON), LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 136

Arbitration-Practice-Case stated-Dispute between parties involving consideration of confidential document- Agreement between parties that provisions should be kept secret-Undesired publicity-Submission to learned arbitrator -Effect of submission to qualified arbitrator-Request by respondents to arbitration to state case under Sect. 9 of Arbitration Act, 1934- Refusal by arbitrator-Order of Atkinson, J., affirming Master's order that case should be stated-Discretion of learned Judge.

THE "GENUA."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 139

Collision between British steamship Grainton and German steamship Genua off Beachy Head in fog-Grainton bound up-Channel; Genua bound down-Channel-Grainton proceeding at full speed-Failure of Grainton to stop on hearing the fog signal of the Genua forward of her beam-Starboarding by Grainton both before and on sighting Genua-Genua's engines stopped on hearing the fog signal of the Grainton ahead, but subsequently put ahead-Collision Regulations, Art. 16.

REDERI A/B. "UNDA" v. W. W. BURDON & CO., LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 149

Charter-party-Shifting boards-Cost of provision, &c.-"(4) Owners shall provide and pay for . . . all stores, and maintain her in a thoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery and equipment for and during the service with dunnage, mats, shifting boards (as far as on board). . . . (5) Charterers shall provide and pay for coals (except for cooking and heating) canal dues, port charges, pilotages, agencies, commissions, expenses of loading and unloading cargoes, and all other charges and expenses whatsoever appertaining to the cargo, except those before stated"-Vessel loaded with wheat in bulk-Owners obliged under Swedish law to fit shifting boards-Whether cost appertained to ship or cargo- Cost paid by shipowners without prejudice -Claim to recover from charterers.

HEARTS OF OAK PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETY v. LAW UNION & ROCK INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 153

Fidelity guarantee insurance-Defalcations of officer of building society- Claim by society under policy- Questions in proposal form as to duties of society's employees-"How often are they required to send statements of cash received? Daily. How often do you require them to pay over to you and are they then allowed to retain a balance in hand; if so, how much? And do you see that they have the amount in their possession? They should not retain and should pay over as received" -Condition 1: "If during the continuance of this policy any circumstance shall occur or change be made which shall have the effect of making the actual facts differ from the statements contained or implied in such questions and replies or any of them without notice thereof being given to the company and the consent or approval in writing of the company being obtained, or if any suppression or misstatement of any fact affecting the risk of the company be made at any time, or if the employer shall continue the employed in his service after having discovered any act of fraud or dishonesty on the part of the employed this policy shall be void and all premiums thereon paid to the company forfeited" - Purpose of questions-Knowledge of society's secretary before renewal of policy that in some instances the employee had not handed over money with the promptitude with which it was his duty to act- Whether breach of warranty as to truth of answers.

TATE & LYLE, LTD. v. HAIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 159

Bill of lading-Deviation-General average -Freight-Claim by plaintiff indorsees to recover deposit made under Lloyd's average bond-Sale of sugar to plaintiffs -Charter by sellers of defendants' vessel Tregenna-Vessel to "proceed to Cuba and there load . . . at one or two safe ports on the south side and at one safe port on the south side of San Domingo as ordered and/or at customary outside anchorage at charterers' option. . . ."-Incorporation in bill of lading of charter-party terms and conditions -Vessel instructed by ship's agents in accordance with sellers' request to proceed to Casilda as first loading port-Following sellers' further request, night letter telegram sent by ship's agents ordering captain to proceed to Santiago and to San Pedro (San Domingo)-No telegraph beyond Trinidad (Cuba)-Message not delivered owing to an alleged default of the postal authorities in Cuba-Vessel proceeds to Santiago from Casilda in accordance with sellers' agents' instructions -Failure to call at San Pedro- Vessel recalled to San Pedro upon discovery of mistake-Further cargo loaded -Grounding of vessel on leaving San Pedro, general average expenses being incurred by shipowners-Cargo transhipped by shipowners and carried to its contract destination by another vessel-Delivery made to plaintiffs upon their signing Lloyd's average bond-Contention by plaintiffs that by reason of the deviation they were freed from any obligation under the bond in respect of the Cuban shipments- Counterclaim by defendants for declaration that plaintiffs were liable in general average in respect of the whole cargo and for balance of freight (or on a quantum meruit) in respect of the Cuban shipments-Alleged waiver of deviation by charterers-Freight payable by charterers in New York upon notice of safe delivery, &c.-Liability of indorsees of bills of lading-Agreement by defendants under bond to deliver cargo "on payment of the freight payable on delivery if any."

TIBBALS v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 184

Master and servant-Superannuation- Basis of assessment-War bonus- Rafter on permanent staff of Surrey Commercial Dock Company-Pension scheme providing (inter alia) that "for the purpose of computing the superannuation allowance in accordance with the prescribed scale the salary or wages of the officer shall . . . be deemed to be at the rate of the actual yearly salary or wages paid to him at the time of his superannuation or retirement exclusive of any gratuities allowances for house or other additions"-Undertakings of dock companies (including Surrey Commercial Dock Company) taken over by and vested in Port of London Authority by virtue of Port of London Act, 1908-Contention by plaintiff that war bonus was "salary or wages" within the meaning of scheme- Ejusdem generis rule-Whether words of exclusion were apt to cover war bonus-Notice given from time to time by Port of London Authority to plaintiff that bonus not to count for pension -No deduction made from war bonus in respect of superannuation.

THE "FLANCHFORD."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 198

Collision between sailing barge Oak and lighter in tow of tug Flanchford off Greenwich Buoys, River Thames-Oak bound up; Flanchford bound down- Contention by Flanchford that Oak put her in difficulty by suddenly changing course and coming across river from south to north-Porting by Flanchford across Oak's bows-Whether Oak could have avoided collision-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1934 Rule 40- Finding of learned Judge of M. & C.L. Ct. that Flanchford was alone to blame -Appeal.

THE "SOLACE."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 201

Damages-Reference to Registrar-Costs of reference-Negligent navigation-Judgment recovered by plaintiff in respect of damage by fire to yacht-Fire due to upsetting of oil stove owing to excessive wash set up by defendant's yacht, which was navigated past the plaintiff's yacht at excessive speed-Reference to Registrar to assess damages-Plaintiff disallowed costs of reference on ground that he had failed to give defendant notice of survey before commencement of re pairs-Motion in objection to report.

THE "BUCCINUM."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 205

Collision between British steamship Cerinthus and Norwegian steamship Buccinum in English Channel off East Goodwin Light-vessel-Cerinthus bound down-Channel; Buccinum bound up-Channel -Vessels on crossing courses with Buccinum the stand-on vessel- Porting by Buccinum followed by hard-a-porting -Starboarding by Cerinthus on appreciating that Buccinum was not keeping her course-No whistle signal sounded by Cerinthus-Further starboarding by Cerinthus, whistle then being sounded, followed by full speed astern-Whether failure to sound whistle signal at first starboard helm action contributed to the collision -Admitted breach of Art. 28 of Collision Regulations-Onus of proof that breach of regulation did not contribute to collision-Further contention by Buccinum that Cerinthus was negligent in failing to take off her way immediately she became aware that the Buccinum was not keeping her course and speed and that there was danger of collision -Buccinum found alone to blame by Bucknill, J.-Appeal-Admission of liability by Buccinum-Whether Cerinthus also to blame.

ABALIAN & TOSSOUNIAN v. INNOUS.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 219

Practice-Trial of action-Claim by plaintiffs for loss of goods under policy dated April, 1930, containing warehouse to warehouse clause-Various applications by plaintiffs for postponement of trial-Order of Branson, J., on Apr. 12, 1933, that the action was to stand dismissed if "not fixed for trial within six years from the date of the alleged loss"-Date of trial of action fixed by Goddard, J., for Oct. 12, 1936 -Appeal by defendant underwriter- Contention that action should be dismissed as it was out of time-Ambiguity of order.

THE "MIGUEL."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 224

Collision between British steamship Tabaristan and Spanish steamship Miguel in Bugsby's Reach, River Thames-Tabaristan bound down river, rounding Blackwall Point; Miguel, having left wharf on north side of river, proceeding stern first up river inside tiers, preparatory to entering river and manoeuvring to straighten for her course down river-Third signal of three short blasts sounded by Miguel on entering main stream-Whether Miguel should have sounded a prolonged blast on entering main stream- Place of collision-Look-out-Particular care necessary when rounding point in river-Port of London River Bylaws, 1914-1934, Rules 20, 26, 33.

THE "CORNISH ROSE."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 237

Salvage-Services rendered by British steamship Finland to British steamship Cornish Rose off Cornish coast-Engines broken down and steering gear disabled-Difficult weather conditions-Vessel towed into Mounts Bay-Probability of other assistance available. Practice-Plaintiffs' statement of facts admitted by defendants-Inferences not admitted-Whether plaintiffs entitled to use defendants' log in support.

WESTMINSTER BANK, LTD. v. IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 242

Carriage by air-Loss of gold bars-Delivery to defendants for carriage from London to Paris-Stolen from strong room at Croydon Airport-Liability of defendants - International carriage - Form of consignment note-Condition in consignment note: "These general conditions are based upon the Convention of Warsaw of Oct. 12, 1929" (which Convention was given force of law by Carriage by Air Act, 1932)- Whether consignment note satisfied requirements of Art. 8, of first schedule to Act, which provided: "The air consignment note shall contain the following particulars . . . (q) a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this Convention" -Right of defendants to limit liability-Whether plaintiffs made special declaration of value or made supplementary payment-Preliminary questions for Court: (1) Whether the consignment note ref erred to in the pleadings satisfied the requirements of Art. 8 (q) of the Convention set out in the First Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1932? (2) If not, whether the defendants have any defence to the plaintiffs' claim? (3) If the consignment note does satisfy the requirements of Art. 8 (q) of the said Convention, whether the defendants' liability is in any event limited to 250 f. per kilogram? (4) Whether there was within the meaning of Art. 22 (2) of the First Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, a special declaration of value and supplementary payment made as alleged in the reply, and, if so, what is the effect thereof in law? (5) On the answers to the foregoing questions, what measure of damages, if any, is applicable?-Carriage by Air Act, 1932, Schedule I, Arts. 1 (2), 5, 9, 18, 20, 22 (2), 23, 25 (1) and 33.

IN RE ANCHOR LINE (HENDERSON BROTHERS), LTD. (APPLICATION BY OCEAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.)

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 251

Sale of goods-Passing of property-Sale of crane by Ocean Steamship Co. to Anchor Line-Terms of contract: "Referring to the conversations which Mr. S. H. Ellis had with Mr. A. C. F. Henderson yesterday, we have pleasure in confirming the arrangement then come to with regard to the 30-ton electric crane at Yorkhill Basin. (1) We agree that you take over the crane . . . for a deferred purchase price of £4000. (2) Until the completion of the purchase you agree to pay us for interest and depreciation at the rates of £350 per annum for the first two years after taking over, £450 per annum for the second two years and £400 per annum thereafter. (3) Of these sums a proportion amounting to £240 per annum, or 6 per cent. of the purchase price of the crane, is to be regarded as depreciation, and the total of these annual payments for depreciation is to be deducted from the above-mentioned amount of £4000 in order to arrive at the balance actually to be paid by you on completion of the purchase whenever that may take place. In the meantime you will have entire charge of and responsibility for the crane in every respect. We suggest that the payments be made quarterly, and that the date for your taking over the crane be fixed as from Sept. 5, 1931"- Anchor Line in liquidation-Sale by liquidator as going concern-Crane included in sale-Claim by Ocean Steamship Co. for declaration that property in crane did not pass to Anchor Line until whole of purchase price paid, and that the liquidator in the circumstances must fie deemed to have adopted the agreement, and therefore that the claimants were entitled to be paid the balance due under the agreement-"Depreciation" -"Interest"-Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sects. 17, 18.

TOLLER v. LAW ACCIDENT INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 258

Motor insurance-Stay of action-Arbitration clause-Policy issued to plaintiff by defendant insurance company covering his Lancia car-Lancia car sold during currency of policy and Morris car bought-Agreement by insurance company to issue fresh policy, plaintiff to receive allowance on old policy- Cover notes issued-Accident occurring after expiry of last cover note-Policy issued when balance of premium paid- Accident not covered-Action brought by plaintiff claiming that policy should have been made retrospective to cover period when accident took place- Application by insurance company to stay action on ground that dispute should be referred to arbitration under clause which would be contained in policy when issued-Action stayed under order of Hilbery, J., reversing order of Master.

JOHANN PLISCHKE & SOHNE, G.m.b.H. v. ALLISON BROTHERS, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 262

Sale of goods-Stoppage in transitu-Sale of linen goods by plaintiffs to N. Bros. -Delivery to "Free house London . . ." -Goods consigned to defendants as forwarding agents-Defendants instructed by buyers to warehouse goods and await further instructions-Subsequent insolvency of buyers-Instructions given by plaintiffs to defendants not to deliver - Whether transitus concluded before goods reached buyers' premises-Claim by plaintiffs against defendants for return of goods or alternatively for conversion-Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sect. 45 (2).

CHALMERS v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 265

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff carman while unloading goods from van at defendants' dock-Plaintiff assisted by two of defendants' employees -No duty to assist-Fall of plaintiff from van during course of unloading-Alleged negligence of defendants' employees while assisting plaintiff to unload-Relationship between parties - Volunteers - Duty owed to plaintiff-Responsibility of defendants.

PENNSYLVANIA SHIPPING COMPANY v. COMPAGNIE NATIONALE DE NAVIGATION.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 271

Charter-party - Rescission - Charter by plaintiffs of defendants' steamship for carriage of molasses-Charter signed by plaintiffs' brokers - Description of vessel - "Pipelines 350 mm. intake; 300 mm. outlet; heating coils fitted right at bottom of tanks"-Tender of vessel refused by plaintiffs on ground that she did not accord with description-Arbitration proceedings commenced by defendants under clause in charter-party-Claim by plaintiffs that they were entitled to rescind charter on the ground that they were induced to eater into it on the faith of material misrepresentations - Whether misrepresentations amounted to breaches of conditions entitling plaintiffs to repudiate.

POLIKOFF, LTD., AND ANOTHER v. NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 279

Fire insurance-Loss of profits-Method of ascertainment-"In adjusting a loss, account shall be taken of any variation in the insured's business or of any extraordinary or other circumstances of the business by addition to or deductions from the turnover output or other standard employed in the policy and in the event of the earnings of the business for the financial year immediately preceding the fire or other period specified in the policy being insufficient to fully meet the amount of standing charges relating to such period the insurance shall only apply to the extent to which the standing charges shall have been met by such earnings"-Policy providing indemnity against: "(a) Loss of profits sustained during the period of indemnity in consequence of the within-mentioned interruption or interference, but not exceeding the ascertained percentage of the sum by which the turnover of such period shall, in consequence of such interruption or interference, fall short of the estimated turnover. Provided that if any of the specified standing charges shall be reduced or cease to be paid or payable the amount of the loss shall be reduced accordingly. (b) Increase in the cost of working necessarily incurred by the insured in consequence of such interruption or interference to maintain during the period of indemnity a turnover not exceeding the estimated turnover; provided that if the total sum insured shall be less than the sum of the net profit which would have been earned and all standing charges (insured and otherwise) of the business which would have been incurred during the annual currency of the policy had the business not been interrupted or interfered with the amount payable shall be proportionately reduced. Provided that the total liability of the insurance in respect of (a) and (b) shall not exceed in consequence of any fire the sum which would be payable in respect of (a) if the business were entirely stopped by the fire during the period of indemnity nor in the aggregate in respect of all fires during any one period of insurance the sum insured, viz., £100,000" - Specified standing charges: "Interest on loans, bank overdrafts, debentures and mortgages; rent, rates and taxes; directors' and auditors' fees; salaries and commission to directors and permanent staff; wages to skilled employees; insurance premiums; legal, advertising and travelling expenses; printing and stationery, stamps and telegrams; telephones, electric lighting and heating, gas and water; repairs to premises, depreciation of such building, plant and machinery as was not destroyed by the fire; and general expenses not exceeding 5 per cent. of the total amount payable in respect of specified standing charges" - Dispatch wages and drivers' wages-Whether "salaries and commissions to directors and permanent staff"-Finding of learned arbitrator that turnover was abnormally increased by an intensive advertising campaign - Reduction of mortgage interest - Voluntary payments by claimants of moneys received under fire policies-Wages to skilled employees - Insurance premiums - Whether including contributions payable by claimants under National Health Insurance Acts-Claim under "General expenses of the business" for packing materials and machinery maintenance-General expenses kept as separate account-Claim disallowed by arbitrator-Income tax-"Depreciation on such building, plant and machinery as is not destroyed by fire" -Claim for compensation in respect of higher percentage of wages upon turnover after fire-Disallowed by arbitrator on ground that policy had already compensated claimants for loss of profit upon lost turnover.

JAMES v. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 291

Constitutional law-Australia-Construction of Constitution-Commonwealth legislation regulating dried fruits trade-"Except as provided by the regulations: (a) the owner or person having possession or custody of dried fruits shall not deliver any dried fruits to any person for carriage into or through another State to a place in Australia beyond the State in which the delivery is made: and (b) the owner or any other person shall not carry any dried fruits from a place in one State into or through another State to a place in Australia beyond the State in which the carriage begins, unless he is the holder of a licence then in force, issued under this Act, authorising him so to deliver or carry such dried fruits as the case may be, and the delivery or carriage is in accordance with the terms and conditions of that licence. Penalty: One hundred pounds or imprisonment for six months"-Consignments of dried fruits by appellant in fulfilment of various inter-State contracts - No licence - Consignments forfeited-Claim by appellant against Commonwealth - Demurrer - Contention by appellant that dried fruits legislation and regulations were invalid in that they contravened Sect. 92 of the Constitution-Restriction of inter-State trade-Whether Sect. 92 binding on Commonwealth- "(51) The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to (i) Trade and commerce with other countries and among the States" -"(92) On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free"- Meaning of "absolutely free"-Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900, Sects. 51 (i), 92-Dried Fruits Act, 1928-35.

GREIN v. IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 318

Carriage by air-Accident-Negligence- Breach of contract of carriage-Death of pilot, navigator and passengers- Claim under Lord Campbell's Act, 1846, against defendant aeroplane company by dependants of deceased passenger- Aeroplane on journey from Antwerp to London in foggy weather-Collision with radio mast at Ruysselede- Whether accident due to negligence of defendants or their servants-Evidence as to equipment of aeroplane-Competence of pilot and navigator- Deceased passenger carried under return ticket from London to Antwerp and back-Ticket incorporating "General Conditions of Carriage of Passengers and Baggage"-Whether passenger by reason of these conditions renounced for himself or his representatives all claims for compensation; and whether, assuming the plaintiff's right to recovery, the sum recoverable was limited to 125,000 francs-Applicability of Carriage by Air Act, 1932- "International carriage"-"The place of departure and the place of destination" -"Agreed stopping place"- Breach of contract causing death- Whether a "wrongful act, neglect, or default" within the meaning of Lord Campbell's Act-General Conditions of Carriage of Passengers and Baggage (International Air Traffic Association), Art. 2, Art. 13, par. 1, Art. 16, Art. 18, pars. 1, 2, 3, 5, Art. 19, pars 1, 2-Carriage by Air Act, 1932, Schedule I, Arts. 1, 3, 17, 20, 22, 31 (1), Schedule II.

R. & W. PAUL, LTD. v. WHEAT COMMISSION.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 343

Wheat Act, 1932-Middlings-Parcels imported by plaintiffs-Whether liable to quota payments as flour-"'Flour' means the products produced by the milling of wheat, and includes all such products except substances separated in the milling as wheat offals"-"'Wheat offals' means the residual products which, in the process of milling wheat, are extracted therefrom as germ or for animal or poultry food"-Arbitration under By-law No. 20 (S.R. & O., 1932, No. 588) made by Wheat Commission "for giving effect to the provisions of this Act"-"20. Any dispute arising between the Wheat Commission and any other person as to whether any substance is flour . . . shall be referred to the arbitration of such member of the panel of referees appointed for the purpose by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as may be agreed upon by the parties to the dispute or, in default of agreement, nominated by that Minister, and the decision of the referee as to the matter in dispute shall be final and conclusive. The following provisions shall have effect in relation to any reference under this by-law-(a) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply. . . ."-Validity of by-law- Whether Wheat Commission protected by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893.

PARKER v. NEW DOCKS STEAM TRAWLING COMPANY (FLEETWOOD), LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 352

Workmen's compensation - Claim by dependants of deceased seaman-Death of seaman from pneumonia-Evidence that deceased had had a fall while on board ship-Suggestion that death was due to traumatic pneumonia following fall-Decision of learned County Court Judge, dismissing claim, that, although he accepted the evidence that there was a fall, there was no evidence that the fall was a severe one, and he was not satisfied that the seaman's illness and subsequent death was the result of that fall.

THE "SCHUYLKILL" AND THE "PACIFIC RANGER."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 354

Collision between motor vessel Schuylkill and steamship Olivegrove in Manchester Ship Canal-Olivegrove, outward bound, moored on west side of canal, preparatory to passing through Eastham locks - Schuylkill inward bound, having just passed through locks-Motor vessel Pacific Ranger, outward bound, also waiting to pass through locks, held in position by head and stern tugs close to east side and opposite Olivegrove, in disregard of orders of lock authorities to tie up on west side-Swinging of Pacific Ranger's stern across canal following entry of Schuylkill-Collision between Schuylkill and Olivegrove-Speed of Schuylkill-Stern tug not made fast on entering canal - Responsibility of Pacific Ranger.

THE "EFFRA."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 362

Collision between Portuguese steamship Cunene and British steamship Effra off Flamborough Head in dense fog- Cunene bound north; Effra bound south -Unreliability of documentary and oral evidence on both sides-Speeds- Collision Regulations, Art. 16. Damages-Master and crew of Effra taken on board Cunene after collision-Effra abandoned under impression that she was sinking-Vessel and cargo subsequently salved by other vessels-Claim by Effra to be indemnified against salvage remuneration and expenses- Whether damage flowing from collision -Alleged failure of Cunene to stand by-Contention by Cunene that they were not requested to stand by- Whether, in absence of request, Cunene under absolute duty to stand by- Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 422.

THE "GERTRUDA."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 373

Salvage-Services rendered by hopper tug Shifter and pilot launches No. 1 and No. 2 to motor vessel Gertruda aground outside entrance to Portland Harbour -Dispute as to weather conditions- Two high waters on each tide-Difficulty in estimating time of high water -Failure to tow vessel off on morning tide-Vessel subsequently towed off on afternoon tide-Difficulty experienced by pilot launch No. 1 in getting rope on board Gertruda-Tender of £300.

THE "HOLSTEIN."

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 379

Practice-Writ-Collision action-Service upon English company, agents of foreign steamship company-Motion to set aside (1) on ground that defendant steamship company was not carrying on business and did not reside in England; (2) on ground that service upon secretary of English company was bad-Limited duties of English company under agency-English company paid guaranteed commission.

SHIPTON, ANDERSON & CO. (1927), LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. MICKS, LAMBERT & CO.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 384

Sale of goods-Liquidation of sellers- Right of buyers under London Corn Trade Association Contracts, Nos. 28 and 36, Clause 5-Purchase of wheat by claimants from first sellers-Sale of wheat by claimants to respondents- Notice of appropriation given-Liquidation of claimants-Purchase by respondents from first sellers of wheat of contract description in order to implement contracts which respondents had made-Contention by liquidator that respondents were bound by Clause 5 to account to claimants for the profit made on repurchase-"5. In case either party shall suspend payment . . . he shall be deemed to be in default, and the other party shall, after giving notice by letter or telegram to the defaulting party, and notwithstanding any bankruptcy or liquidation, be entitled immediately to resell or repurchase, as the case may be, and shall also be entitled to be paid, or to prove in any bankruptcy, liquidation or otherwise, for the loss, if any, or shall account for the profit, if any, occasioned by such resale or repurchase"- Option to close contract and purchase against claimants not exercised by respondents-Construction of Clause 5.

GARCIA v. PAGE & COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 391

Sale of goods-Repudiation by seller- Sale by English, company to Spanish buyer - Contract dated May 27, 1935, calling for shipment to Spain during first half of September, 1935, providing: "Buyer to open immediately a confirmed credit in London in favour of sellers"-Delay in providing credit-Notification given by sellers on Aug. 22 that if credit not received in London by Aug. 24 they would cancel contract-Credit opened in Spain by buyer on Aug. 24-Notification received by sellers on Aug. 27-Buyer informed by sellers on Aug. 27 that as credit did not comply with contract terms they repudiated the contract-Satisfactory credit opened on Sept. 3-Arbitration- Case stated-Whether sellers justified in their repudiation-Whether opening of a confirmed credit was a condition precedent.

MAGALLANES SALVAGE COMPANY v. ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1936) 55 Ll.L.Rep. 393

Salvage - Contract - Claim by plaintiff salvage company against defendant underwriters to be paid for hire of pumps and work done on steamship Yero Carras insured with defendants -Stranding of vessel in Strait of Magellan - Salvage agreement entered into between plaintiffs and owners on Lloyd's form-Plaintiffs to get £6000 plus further amount to be settled by arbitration-Vessel refloated by plaintiffs and taken to Magallanes -Dispute between owners and underwriters as to whether vessel was a constructive total loss-Owners' claim settled on basis of arranged total loss, "Owners to retain the ship and to assume all liabilities incurred in connection therewith, with the exception of the underwriters' own representative's charges"-Pumping charges incurred during period of dispute-Alleged agreement between underwriters' representative and plaintiffs' representative that underwriters would pay for cost of pumping-Proof of agreement-Correspondence passing between the parties at the time of the salvage operations.

Lloyd's Law Reports