i-law.com

MAURICE v. GOLDSBROUGH, MORT & CO., LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 1

Fire insurance-Loss of profits, commission, etc. - Warehousemen - Consignment of wool sent to wool brokers which they were to receive into store, pay carriage arising therefrom, prepare for sale, and sell on commission-Obligation upon brokers to insure-Insurance of wool by brokers, policy covering "Merchandise the assured's own property or held by them in trust or on commission for which they may be liable in the event of loss or damage by fire" while lying in brokers' store -Insured value "not including profit of any kind"-Loss by fire-Amounts collected on policies by brokers, based on gross selling value-Claim by brokers to deduct sums for prospective commission lost by reason of the fire, and charges which would have been made in preparing wool for sale-Insurable interest of wool brokers.

RUBIN v. W. SMITH & CO. (GRIMSBY), LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 7

Arbitration-Sole arbitrator-Validity of appointment - Motion to set aside award-Contract for sale of wooden boxes-Bought and sold notes exchanged between parties, each note being signed by L. Ltd. as agents for undisclosed principals-Provision for arbitration in case of any dispute "respecting the fulfilment of this contract"-Claim by buyers to reject-Correspondence between parties-Point raised by buyers that their contract was with L. Ltd. as agents and not with individual seller (R)-Buyers notified by seller that B had been appointed as his arbitrator and that he would act as sole arbitrator in the event of the buyers not appointing their arbitrator within seven clear days-Buyers informed by B seven days later that he proposed to arbitrate upon the dispute between the parties - Matters within submission-Validity of appointment of B as sole arbitrator-Arbitration Act, 1889, Sect. 6.

BAKER v. PROVIDENT ACCIDENT & WHITE CROSS INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 14

Motor insurance-Passenger carried "by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment"-Plaintiff, employee of laundry, carried in motor van belonging to laundry and being driven by fellow employee-Collision with car- Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff - Judgment recovered by plaintiff against driver of van and driver of car-Authority of van driver to carry fellow employees-Scope of authority- -Liability of laundry-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 36 (1).

A/S TANK v. AGENCE MARITIME L. STRAUSS.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 19

Charter-party-Discharging ports-Vessel chartered to load at Philadelphia "and being so loaded shall therewith proceed (as ordered on signing bills of lading), direct to one safe port East Coast United Kingdom or on the Continent . . ." - "Charterers have the option of discharging at two safe ports as above and in the event of this option being exercised charterers are to pay extra freight as follows:-6d. per ton on the whole cargo"-Havre first indicated as single discharging port-Provisional exercise of option by charterers (Bordeaux being declared as extra discharging port) later confirmed by charterers, owners agreeing to discharge "in rotation mentioned rely on quick despatch for loading and discharging" - Neither master nor shippers informed of exercise of option-Bills of lading presented by shippers, and signed by master, for discharge at single discharging port, Havre-Subsequent agreement by owners to discharge at two ports (though contrary to signed bills of lading), question of extra remuneration to be settled by arbitration-Whether extra freight to be assessed in accordance with option given in charter-party or whether owners entitled to claim full cost-Meaning of "as ordered on signing bills of lading"-Waiver.

THE "ST. MACHAR."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 27

Collision - Launching - Collision in Aberdeen Harbour between steamship Gwenthills, being launched, and tug St. Machar employed to take her in tow thereafter-Respective duties-Evidence of local practice observed in launching a vessel of that size and of events leading up to collision - Whether, assuming tug was at fault, she was protected by towing conditions -Apportionment of blame-Whether Gwenthills, having just been launched, was a "vessel used in navigation"- Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 742-Maritime Conventions Act, 1911.

E. TIMM & SON, LTD. v. NORTHUMBRIAN SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 33

Bill of lading-Unseaworthiness-Bunkers -Seaworthiness by stages-"Faults or errors in navigation"-Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners for loss of cargo shipped at Vancouver for Hull-Vessel, having left Colon, bound for St. Thomas to bunker-Inadequacy of bunkers-Decision of captain to deviate to Port Royal, Jamaica, for bunkers-Stranding of vessel on the Morant Cays in normal weather-Total loss of vessel and cargo-Admission that loss was due to negligent navigation of master-Whether shipowners had failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy in regard to her bunkers-Plaintiffs' contention that insufficient bunkers were carried for stage of voyage from Vancouver to St. Thomas, or, assuming a fresh stage commenced at Colon, for voyage from Colon to St. Thomas-Dispute as to bunker requirements for such a voyage - Seaworthiness by stages - Determination of stage - Authority of master to take in further bunkers at Colon if necessary-Shipowners' contention that Court should apply a lower standard of seaworthiness where vessel had an optional intermediate bunkering port; that there was a sufficiency of bunkers, bearing in mind that optional facility; and that the failure to make good what in fact turned out to be a deficiency was not a breach of the warranty of seaworthiness but was a fault or error of the master for which the shipowners were excused-Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1910, Sects. 6, 7.

PETROS M. NOMIKOS, LTD. v. ROBERTSON.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 45

Marine insurance-Freight policy-Loss of freight - Institute Time Clauses (Freight):- (5) In the event of the total loss, whether absolute or constructive of the steamer the amount underwritten by this policy shall be paid in full, whether the steamer be fully or only partly loaded or in ballast, chartered or unchartered. (6) 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. (8) Warranted free from any claim consequent on loss of time whether arising from a peril of the sea or otherwise.

Vessel chartered-Explosion and fire on board-Charter abandoned-Election by shipowners to repair although cost of repairs exceeded insured value-Claim for partial loss paid by hull underwriters-Claim by shipowners to recover amount underwritten by freight policy on ground of constructive total loss of steamer, based on Institute Time Clauses (Freight), No. 5-Contention by freight underwriters that the shipowners were not entitled to recover on the grounds (1) that there was no constructive total loss of the vessel because there had been no notice of abandonment by the shipowners; (2) that the claim was excluded by Clause 8 as being a claim consequent on loss of time-Meaning of "constructive total loss" - Necessity for abandonment-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 60, 61, 62, 63.

COURT LINE, LTD. v. CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 57

Charter-party-Club Insurances-Damage to cargo due to improper stowage-Liability of shipowners to receivers-Receivers paid by shipowners' club-Claim by shipowners to recover full amount from time-charterers; alternatively, £10 franchise which shipowners were required to refund to club - Implied obligation of time-charterers-Clause 8 of charter providing that "The captain (although appointed by the owners) shall be under the orders and direction of the charterers as regards employment or agency; and charterers are to load, stow, and trim the cargo at their expense under the supervision of the captain, who is to sign bills of lading for cargo as presented . . . Owners to give time-charterers the benefit of their protection and indemnity club insurances as far as club rules allow, and in case of shortage or damage to cargo, charterers to bear the franchise according to the club rules, which owners would have otherwise borne"-Club Rules: "2. The members are protected and indemnified as shipowners in respect of losses or claims arising without their actual fault or privity, which they shall have become liable to pay, and shall have in fact paid as follows . . . (i) For other claims arising in respect of the shipment, carriage, discharge, or delivery of goods or merchandise arising through other causes than 'improper navigation,' the intention being to mutually protect and indemnify the members against the negligence or default of their servants or agents. The Association shall be entitled to recover for its own account from third parties any damages that may be provable by reason of such neglect. Provided that, except in respect of claims for loss of life and personal injury, the member shall bear the first £10 of any one claim attaching to either the protection or indemnity section of the rules . . . 17. No assignment or subrogation by a member of his cover with this Association to charterers or any other person shall be deemed to bind this Association to any extent whatsoever"-Interpretation of club rules-Liability under charter-party for improver stowage-Decision of Lewis, J., affirming award, that the shipowners were only entitled to recover £10 from the time-charterers-Cross-appeals by shipowners and time-charterers.

THE "HAARFAGRE."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 69

Collision-Fog-Collision between British motor vessel British Reliance and Norwegian steamship Haarfagre in North Sea-Vessels on almost opposite courses - "Under way" signals exchanged-Engines stopped-Way run off by British Reliance and "lying stopped" signals sounded - British Reliance then navigated at "dead slow ahead" in belief that Haarfagre was abeam-Engines of Haarfagre put "slow ahead" and starboard helm action taken on hearing "lying stopped" signals of British Reliance-Helm action taken by Haarfagre in belief that the British Reliance was ahead-Further signals exchanged indicating that both vessels were again under way - Respective duties - Whether "lying stopped" signals amounted to an invitation to other vessel to proceed - Positions not ascertained - Collision Regulations, Art. 16.

THE "MARIA ULYANOVA."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 78

Collision-Anchored vessel-Collision between British steamship Quickstep and Russian motor vessel Maria Ulyanova, in River Elbe, during fog-Both vessels bound down, Maria Ulyanova following the Quickstep - Quickstep anchored owing to fog, vessel swinging to an up-river heading on ebb tide-Election by Maria Ulyanova to anchor-Anchor dropped, vessel swinging to starboard-Contact between port quarter of Maria Ulyanova and stem of Quickstep-Manoeuvres taken by Quickstep to avoid collision-Whether Quickstep was ringing her bell-Look-out.

SMITH, HOGG & CO., LTD. v. BLACK SEA & BALTIC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 87

Charter-party-Unseaworthiness - General average-Charter of vessel for voyage from Soroka to Garston-Timber cargo (including deckload) loaded at Soroka, vessel sailing with list of five degrees-Decision to take on board more bunkers at Stornoway - Arrival at Stornoway with list to starboard of 15 deg.-16 tons of bunkers loaded, causing vessel to heel over to port - Vessel beached to prevent her sinking-Part of cargo lost and damaged-Claim by shipowners for general average contribution from cargo - Counterclaim by defendant insurance company (as guarantors for cargo) for loss and damage to cargo-"The shipowner shall not be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness unless caused by want of due diligence on the part of the shipowner to make the ship seaworthy, and to secure that the ship is properly manned, equipped and supplied, and to make the holds and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried fit and safe for their reception, carried and preservation. The shipowner shall not be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from: Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the shipowner in the navigation or in the management of the ship" -Whether due diligence exercised by shipowners-Onus of proof-Evidence of instability-Cause of loss.

T. D. BAILEY, SON & CO. v. ROSS T. SMYTH & CO., LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 95

Sale of goods (c.i.f.) - Rejection of documents by buyers - London Corn Trade Association Contract, No. 28-Sale of 15,000 units [of 480 lb.] of No. 2 Yellow American Corn-Seller "has the option of shipping a further 3 per cent. more or less on contract quantity, excess or deficiency over the above 2 per cent. to be settled at the c.f. & i. price on date of bill of lading, and on the quantity thereof"-Added typewritten clause providing: "Separate documents for each 1000 units and each 1000 units to be considered a separate contract"-Notice of appropriation given of "about 15,444 qrs."-Provisional invoice sent by sellers stating that there were 15 bills of lading each for 1000 units and one bill of lading for 444 units-Rejection of provisional invoice by buyers as not being in accordance with contract-Amended provisional invoice sent by sellers stating that there were 15 bills of lading each for 1000 units, also rejected by buyers-Arbitration - Award of Appeal Committee (reversing award of umpire) that buyers were entitled to reject-Case stated-Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sects. 17 (1), 18 (1), Rule 5, 30 (1).

THE "WINKLER."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 103

Collisions-Fog-Collision between British steamship Domby and the Panamanian motor electric tank vessel Winkler, off Delaware Breakwater-Vessels on crossing courses of about 33 deg.-Contact between stem of Domby and port side of Winkler-Visibility-Speeds Look-out.

DAVEY v. BARRY SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 110

Docks Regulations, 1934-Breach of statutory duty-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff stevedore engaged in discharging cargo from defendants' steamship -Fall of boom of derrick owing to breaking of link in chain attached to topping lift-"19 (b) All chains, other than bridle chains attached to derricks or masts, and all rings, hooks, shackles and swivels used in hoisting or lowering shall, unless they have been subjected to such other treatment as may be prescribed, be effectually annealed under the supervision of a competent person and at the following intervals . . . (c) All chains, other than bridle chains attached to derricks or masts, and all rings, hooks, shackles, swivels and pulley blocks shall be inspected by a competent person immediately before each occasion on which they are used in hoisting or lowering, unless they have been inspected within the preceding three months"-Whether preventer wires should have been provided for such gear-Expert evidence upon the cause of break in chain-Plaintiff's contention that the break was due to brittleness, coupled with crack; defendants' contention that it was due to flaw-Whether defendants had complied with statutory duty of inspection; and, if so, whether it was negligently performed.

ZURICH GENERAL ACCIDENT & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. BUCK AND ANOTHER.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 115

Motor insurance - Misrepresentation - Claim by plaintiff insurance company for declaration that they were entitled to avoid policy issued to defendants H B and/or W B-Counterclaim by defendants for rectification of policy and for declaration that they were entitled to be indemnified in respect of third-party claim arising out of negligent driving of W B-Van purchased by W B with money advanced by H B-Van to be driven by W B and used in his business-Proposal for insurance made by W B to plaintiffs through their agent-Insurance and registration in name of H B-Mis-statements in proposal form-Whether policy correctly expressed the proposal for insurance made to plaintiffs' agent-Authority of agent.

N.V. ARNOLD OTTO MEYER v. ANDRE AUNE.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 121

Sale of goods (c.i.f.)-Tender of bills of lading - Form - Custom - London Copra Association Contract No. 2-Contracts for sale of parcels of copra, December, 1937, and January, 1938, shipment - Shipment to be "direct and/or indirect, with or without transhipment"-Names of steamer or steamers, together with bill of lading date and in case of transhipment the name of on-carrying steamer in addition to name of coastal steamer to be given-Shipments in coastal steamer in time-Transhipment into on-carrying steamer at Cebu after contract date-Ocean bills of lading ante-dated to accord with dates of shipment in coastal steamer-Custom of trade-Whether bills of lading a good tender-Arbitration-Award of Association's Board of Appeal that bills of lading were in a form usual in the trade and were a good tender-Case stated-Motion by buyers that award be remitted to hear further evidence (as disclosed by ship's manifests) as to date of original shipment; as to shipment in bags; and as to names of shippers-Sale of Goods Act, 1893, Sect. 55.

ONESIMUS DOREY & SONS, LTD. v. HEADLEY'S WHARF, LTD., AND WM. ASHBY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 131

Negligence-Bad berth-Sagging damage to plaintiffs' ship-Vessel, under charter, loaded with stone for discharge at first defendants' wharf in London, first defendants having first call upon charterers' London cargoes-First defendants' wharf already occupied-Arrangement made that vessel should part discharge at adjacent wharf belonging to second defendants-Nature of arrangement-Vessel, too long for second defendants' wharf, berthed in position overlapping first defendants' wharf - Liability of defendants - Whether jointly responsible for damage.

THE "AMAZONE."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 137

International law-Diplomatic privilege-Immunity from process-Action in rem for possession of yacht-Motion by defendant (assistant military attaché to Belgian Embassy) that writ and arrest be set aside on the ground that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity, that he was in possession of the yacht and was impleaded by the writ-Evidence of possession and of defendant's position in diplomatic service - Certificate of Foreign Office-Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708, Sect. 3.

THE "ITHAKA."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 141

Salvage-Arbitration-Stay of proceedings-Stranding of steamship Ithaka in Dardanelles in Turkish territorial waters-Salvage monopoly of T. Co.-Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement signed by master-Vessel salved and taken to Istanbul-Security lodged in accordance with form-Vessel released by salvors - Action subsequently commenced in Turkish Courts by shipowners to set aside salvage agreement, it being alleged that it was signed by the master under duress-Motion by shipowners that arbitration proceedings be stayed pending the hearing of the action brought in the Turkish Courts.

PERMAVOX, LTD. v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 145

Arbitration-Submission-Motion for leave to revoke-Claim under fire insurance policy-Policy containing Scott v. Avery clause-Arbitration under policy-Issue of fraud raised by insurance company-Motion by assured that submission be revoked and that issue of fraud be tried in open Court-Arbitration Act, 1934, Sect. 14 (2).

SANDAY & CO., LTD. v. MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR INDUSTRIEELE EN FINANCIEELE ONDERNEMINGEN N.V.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 147

Principal and agent - Agreement by English agents to sell commodities on behalf of Dutch principals - Certain margins of credit allowed by agents upon orders sent to them by Dutch principals for execution-Negotiations between parties as to increased margin credits-Sales in the meantime effected by agents on principals' behalf - Whether sale contracts affirmed by principals subject to condition precedent that margin credits should be extended -Failure by principals to make immediate payment of margin call by agents-Account closed by agents-Dispute as to period during which the principals were entitled to make payment of differences due - Whether period extended - Estoppel-Arbitration -Award that sale contracts were not made subject to the condition of an extension of credit and were binding on the Dutch principals, and that the agents were entitled to close the account -Case stated.

AKTIESKELSKAPET SKAGERAK v. SAREMINE SOCIETE ANONYME.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 153

Charter-party-Shifting boards-Whether cost of providing and erecting upon shipowners or charterers-Time charter for two years-General form of charter-Vessel to be delivered (and re-delivered) at Chinese port - Owners to "provide and pay for all the provisions and wages (and galley coal and/or fuel) and for the insurance of the steamer, and for all deck and engine-room stores and maintain her in good order and condition and in a thoroughly efficient state in hull and machinery for and during the service . . ."-Charterers to "provide and pay for all the coal (except galley coal and/or fuel) fuel, water for boilers, port charges, pilotages . . . canal steersmen, boatage, lights, tug-assistance, consulages . . . canal, dock and other dues and charges . . . agencies, commissions, expenses of loading, trimming, stowing, unloading, weighing, tallying and delivery of cargoes, surveys on hatches and protests (if relating to cargo) and all other charges and expenses whatsoever, except those above stated" and to "supply and pay for all dunnage required, but [to] have the free use of any dunnage also separation mats and/or ventilators that may be in the steamer" - Vessel delivered at Hongkong - Immediately ordered by time-charterers to proceed to Australia to load bulk grain under voyage charter -Shifting boards required to be erected by Australian Grain Regulations-Custom for vessels engaged in Australian grain trade-Cost of fitting (both material and labour) deducted by time-charterers from hire due to owners-Arbitration-Award that shipowners were liable for cost - Case stated.

BEAUMONT-THOMAS v. BLUE STAR LINE, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 159

Negligence-Personal injuries-Steamship passenger-Fall while on board ship alleged to be due to wet, dangerous and slippery condition of surface of alleyway after washing by member of crew-Permanent injuries sustained - Claim against shipowners - Jury's award of £6000-Ticket conditions: "8. Passengers take upon themselves all risk whatsoever of the passage to themselves their baggage and effects including risks of embarking and disembarking and whether by boat or otherwise. 9. Without restricting the generality of Condition No. 8 neither the company, the master nor its agents shall be held liable for loss, damage, injury . . . arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any act, neglect or default of pilot, master, officers, mariners . . . in the navigation or management of the ship or from the act of God, collision, stranding . . . riots and civil commotion . . . strikes . . . restraint of princes . . . perils of the sea . . . unseaworthiness or unfitness of the ship or her machinery . . . fire, steam or electricity . . . unlighted or unguarded ladders, doors, gangways or openings through any deck or the side of the steamer . . . or from any other cause whatsoever" - Whether shipowners protected by conditions-Construction of clause excepting liability-Appeal by shipowners against judgment of Lord Hewart, C.J., in favour of passenger-Whether any evidence of negligence to be left to jury.

THE "MOSSOVIET."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 167

Salvage-Services rendered by tugs Jolasry II and Goelands III to Russian steamship Mossoviet in Oran Harbour-Mossoviet proceeding to her berth-Failure of reversing engines to operate- Anchors dropped - Collision with Greek steamship Alexandros, stem of Mossoviet penetrating starboard side of Alexandros-Mossoviet towed clear by tugs and taken to her berth-Nature of services-Narrow waterway-Busy harbour-Salvage services admitted but claim alleged to be exaggerated.

THE "BANDRA."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 172

Merchant Shipping Act, 1906-Appeal from decision of Court of Formal Investigation at Karachi upon collision between bunder boat and British steamship Bandra in Karachi Harbour-Bandra making her way to berth-Bunder boat sighted 150 ft. ahead, without lights-Full astern and hard-a-starboard helm action taken by Bandra-Bunder boat upset, five passengers being drowned-Appeal by owners of Bandra against finding of Court that collision was contributed to by the lack of skill shown by the pilot in hard-a-starboarding with reversed engines-Bunder boat admittedly also to blame.

EVANS, REID, TEASDALE & LIDSTROM, LTD. v. C. WILH. SVENSSONS TRAVARUAKTIEBOLAG.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 183

Sale of goods-Quality-Claim by buyers-"Pitprops C.I.F Form ('Scanform')"-Sale of full and complete cargo of pitprops-"(5) In case of complaint as regards quality, notice thereof to be given to seller without loss of time, and such portion of the goods, alleged to be defective, to be laid aside for inspection by seller on final discharge. No complaint in respect of quality and condition to be recognised, unless notified within seven clear days of ship's final discharge at port of destination. (12) Measurement to take place in buyers' yard by the railway company's measurers free of expense to sellers, at sellers' option controlled by sellers' representatives, and final settlement to be made pro or con in accordance therewith in cash less 212 per cent. discount on the f.o.b. value. Measurement to be completed within one month after ship's final discharge whereafter no claims to be recognised as regards quality and measure"-Arrival of vessel at Garston on Aug. 21, 1937 - Discharged on Aug. 25-Complaint made on Aug. 26 to sellers' agents by buyers that "The cargo is of such dreadful quality that we cannot accept, and we regret that there appears no alternative but to demand arbitration" - Measurement (in hands of L.M.S. Railway Co.) not completed until Oct. 8-Detailed claim made by buyers on Nov. 3-Whether claim out of time - Construction of contract - Award in favour of buyers.

CORPORACION ARGENTINA DE PRODUCTORES DE CARNES v. ROYAL MAIL LINES, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 188

Bill of lading-Unseaworthiness-Damage to cargo of frozen meat shipped in good order and condition at Buenos Aires for London-Part of cargo delivered damaged by brine-Leakage in rubber coupling of refrigerating machinery-Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners-Incorporation in bill of lading of Arts. I, II, III and IV of Schedule to Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924-Exercise of due diligence by shipowners-Onus of proof - Evidence of regular pressure and visual tests both in London and in Buenos Aires-Latent defect.

ROBINSON, DAVID & CO., LTD. v. VSESOJUZNOJE OBJEDINENIJE "EXPORTLES."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 193

Sale of goods-Quality-Sale of wood goods-Complaint by buyers as to condition and bracking - "No complaint or claim for quality and/or condition will be recognised by sellers upon any goods shipped under this contract, unless reasonable particulars are given to agents within fourteen days, and the goods in respect of which a claim is made are produced ready for inspection within twenty-one days, both from date of ship's final discharge. If, in consequence of delay by a dock company or other public utility body or delay caused by circumstances shown by buyers to be beyond their reasonable control, the goods are not so ready for inspection, the buyers shall, on giving notice to agents of such delay, be entitled to an extension of time for the period covered by this delay"-Reasonable particulars of claim given in time-Goods not produced for inspection within 21 days - Arbitration - Award in form of special case-Question for Court: "Whether upon the facts found and a true construction of the contract the buyers have lost their right to claim in respect of the contract goods on the ground that they failed to produce the goods for inspection within twenty-one days of the ship's final discharge."

THE "NAPIER STAR."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 197

Collision Regulations-Breach by navigating officer-Whether breach of statutory duty by owners-Claims by crew against other colliding vessel-Apportionment of damages - Common employment - Collision between British steamships Laurentic and Napier Star - Vessels found equally to blame-Members of crew of Laurentic killed in collision-Actions brought by personal representatives against Napier Star-Further actions by injured seaman and passenger - Actions settled - Claim by owners of Napier Star to recover from owners of Laurentic one-half of sums paid in settlement and of costs incurred in defence of these actions-Report of learned Registrar upholding contention by owners of Laurentic that claims brought against them by members of her crew (or by their representatives) would have failed by reason of the defence of common employment; that as regards the claim by the passenger, they were protected by the ticket conditions; and that therefore the owners of the Napier Star could not recover from the owners of the Laurentic any proportion of the sums paid in settlement or of the costs incurred in defending these claims - Motion in objection by owners of Napier Star - Admitted breach of Collision Regulations by navigating officer of Laurentic - Contention by owners of Napier Star that that breach constituted a breach of statutory duty by the owners of the Laurentic in that they had failed to comply with Sect. 419 (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which provides: "All owners and masters of ships shall obey the Collision Regulations, and shall not carry or exhibit any other lights, or use any other fog signals, than such as are required by those Regulations"; and that therefore the plea of common employment would have been of no avail - Doctrine of common employment considered-Duty of shipowners under Sect. 419 (1)-Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, Sects. 1, 3 (1).

HAYES v. MILLS & KNIGHT, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 207

Shipbuilding Regulations, 1931-Breach of statutory duty - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff riveter engaged in defendant's ship-repairing yard - Plaintiff engaged in work on keel - Men engaged in other work on staging erected above - Fall of loose piece of wood through gap in staging, injuring plaintiff - Wood negligently left in insecure position by another of defendants' servants - Regulation 31: "The occupier shall as far as practicable take steps to minimise the risk arising from loose articles or materials being left lying about in any place from which they may fall on persons working or passing underneath"-Duty of defendants - Onus of proof that Regulations had been complied with-Regulations 31, 32, 45 (a), 52 (b) - Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, Sect. 85 (2).

COURT LINE, LTD. v. DANT & RUSSELL, INC.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 212

Charter-party-Frustration-Time charter for nine or ten months, vessel entering upon service in March, 1937-Vessel to be redelivered at Australian port - Hire to be paid monthly in advance-"15. In the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment, grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, or by any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost. . . . 16. Should the vessel be lost, money paid in advance and not earned . . . shall be returned to the charterers at once. The act of God, enemies, fire, restraint of princes, rulers and people, and all dangers and accidents of the seas . . . always mutually excepted"-Cargo loaded at Portland (Oregon) for Wuhu and Shanghai, vessel arriving at Wuhu on Aug. 7 - Outbreak of hostilities between China and Japan - Boom placed across River Yangtsze by Chinese to prevent Japanese fleet from ascending river - Discharge completed at Wuhu by Sept. 3.-Vessel prevented by boom from proceeding down river-Indication of indefinite delay-River in fact cleared before time for redelivery at Australian port-Claim by charterers that charter was frustrated on Sept. 3; and for repayment of subsequent payments of hire - Claim by owners for damages for wrongful repudiation - Arbitration - Award that charter was frustrated on Sept. 3, but that neither party could recover anything from the other party-Case stated -Doctrine of frustration of time charter considered.

THE "NAVEMAR."*

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 220

International law-Ship-Confiscation by Spanish Republic of Spanish vessel - Libel for possession brought by owners-Contention on behalf of Spanish Republic that the vessel, on arrival in American waters, was in the possession of the Spanish Republic and subject to their direction and control for use in the national public service, and that accordingly the vessel was not subject to process in the American Courts without the consent of the Spanish Republic and in the absence of such consent was immune from any such process - Vessel on time charter to American corporation, charter at time of alleged seizure still having six months to run - Decree of Spanish Republic authorising seizure on their behalf - Evidence of indorsements on the ship's roll and ship's register by Spanish Government representatives at Rosario and Buenos Aires, in accordance with decree, before arrival in American waters-Decision of District Court that the application on behalf of the Spanish Republican Government seeking to set aside the decree granting possession to the owners must be refused, as there was no evidence of actual possession by some act of physical dominion or control on behalf of that Government, either before or after arrival in United States waters-Decision upheld by Supreme Court, with permission for further intervention by applicant for the purpose of asserting the Spanish Government's ownership and right of possession of the vessel - Additional proof adduced on behalf of Spanish Republican Government-Finding of District Ct. that the additional proof failed to substantiate the Spanish Government's claim that they had obtained possession - Appeal by Spanish Republican Government.

REARDON SMITH LINE, LTD. v. BLACK SEA & BALTIC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 229

Charter-party-General average - Deviation-Vessel chartered to load full cargo of ore at Poti and being so loaded proceed to Baltimore - Call at Constantza for bunker-fuel-Stranding at Constantza - Part cargo jettisoned - General average expenditure incurred by shipowners-Cargo lien released by shipowners on guarantee given by cargo underwriters - Claim by shipowners for declaration that cargo underwriters were liable to pay to them the contribution due from cargo towards general average loss and expenditure, and that underwriters should concur in releasing to shipowners the sum deposited in bank in joint names to cover balance of freight (withheld from payment by consignees of jettisoned cargo) - Whether vessel deviated in calling at Constantza - Shipowners' contention that vessel was pursuing a usual and reasonable commercial route - Admissibility of evidence as to the usual commercial route for such a vessel.

DOBSON SHIP REPAIRING COMPANY, LTD. v. BURTON.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 244

Workmen's compensation - Review of weekly payments-Infant apprentice-Accident incurred in August, 1932, when respondent, aged 16, employed by appellants as apprentice shipwright-Compensation paid, based on earnings at that time - Application for review made to appellants in December, 1937, just before respondent attained age of 21 years and 6 months-Date when apprenticeship would have finished: Feb. 23, 1938 - Arbitration proceedings for review commenced before learned County Court Judge on May 19, 1938-Compensation increased as from Feb. 24, 1938, the Judge basing his award on the fact that as from that date the respondent would, if uninjured, have earned £3 per week as a fully qualified journeyman-"Application for the review"-"Date of the review" - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sect. 11 (as amended by Act of 1926).

W. I. RADCLIFFE STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD., AND ANOTHER v. EXPORTHLEB.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 250

Charter-party-Shifting from one berth to another-Cost-Chartered vessel loaded at Theodosia for London-"(1) Shifting from one berth to another shall not be considered as a further place of loading. Charterers have the option of loading and discharging at two safe berths in one port without extra charge and time for shifting not to count. Further shiftings to be for charterers' account and time for shifting to count. (21) The cargo to be delivered according to the custom of the port, at such wharf, dock, or other safe place (always afloat) as charterers or their agents may direct on steamer's arrival"-Vessel ordered by charterers to discharge first at wharf in Millwall Dock and then at wharves in Victoria Dock-Liability for cost of shifting from Millwall Dock to Victoria Dock - Whether falling upon shipowners or charterers-Both docks geographically and commercially within port of London-Arbitration-Award that cost fell upon shipowners-Case stated.

RAYMOND & REID AND OTHERS v. KING LINE, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 254

Bill of lading-Damage to cargo of wheat - Sweat - Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners - Shipment of wheat at Vancouver for London "in apparent good order and condition"-Over-stowage of damp wood-pulp and unseasoned timber - Winter voyage-Evidence of weather conditions-Ventilators closed for 18 days out of 47-Sweat damage to wheat found on discharge at London - Whether due to perils of the seas or bad stowage -Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1936, Schedule, Art. IV, r. 2 (c), (m) and (q).

THE "ITHAKA."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 259

Salvage-Arbitration-Stay of proceedings-Stranding of steamship Ithaka in Dardanelles in Turkish territorial waters-Monopoly of salvors-Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement signed by master-Vessel salved and taken to Istanbul-Security lodged in accordance with form-Vessel released by salvors-Action subsequently commenced in Turkish Courts by shipowners to set aside salvage agreement, it being alleged that it was signed by the master under duress - Motion by shipowners that arbitration proceedings be stayed pending the hearing of the action brought in the Turkish Courts - Equitable jurisdiction of English Courts to stay proceedings.

CRANFIELD BROS., LTD. v. TATEM STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 264

Bill of lading-Damage to cargo of wheat-Unseaworthiness or perils of the sea-Latent defect - Wheat shipped in good order and condition at Vancouver -Found damaged by sea water upon discharge in London-Survey to ascertain cause of damage-Discovery of leaky rivet, due to corrosion - Whether shipowners exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage - Evidence of previous classification surveys and of examinations in dry dock and before loading-Defective rivet in area peculiarly susceptible to panting damage - Whether creating a special duty of inspection of rivets in vicinity-Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1936, Schedule, Art. IV, r.1, r.2 (c), (P).

B. SUNLEY & CO., LTD. v. CUNARD WHITE STAR, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 272

Contract-Breach-Loss of use of tractor and excavator-Measure of damages-Contract by defendant shipping company to transport plaintiffs' tractor and excavator from Doncaster to Guernsey by defendants' steamship S-Plaintiffs' equipment to be used under contract in Guernsey-Failure of defendants to provide proper land transport - Shipment in defendants' steamship B one week later, Guernsey contract thereby being delayed one week-No evidence of specific pecuniary loss-Whether plaintiffs entitled to damages for loos of use-Remoteness of damages.

THE "LA PLATA."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 283

Collision-Fog-Collision between Greek steamship Akti and German steamship La Plata in Bay of Biscay in fog-Akti sunk, with loss of 17 of her crew of 35, including master and first and second officers-Vessels about half a point off opposite courses - Akti navigating in fog, proceeding at about four or five knots; La Plata having just entered fog bank at full speed of 10 knots - Visibility of a quarter of a mile-Port helm signal sounded by La Plata, with no immediate reduction of speed - Starboard helm signal sounded by Akti, engines being immediately put "full astern" - Further port helm signal sounded by La Plata, her engines then being put "full astern" - Port how of Akti penetrated by stem and bows of La Plata-Seamanship.

ROWAN v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 288

Motor insurance - Loss of plaintiff's taxicab by fire-Taximeter also destroyed-Whether covered by policy providing that the insurance company "will indemnify the insured against loss of or damage to any of the insured's motor vehicles described in the schedule hereto including the accessories belonging thereto thereon caused by fire . . . up to the market value of the motor vehicle at the time of such loss or damage but not exceeding in any event the sum stated in the schedule hereto"-Limit of £150-Market value of cab, £80; of taximeter, £25-Decision of learned County Court Judge that plaintiff was only entitled to recover the market value of the cab without the taximeter.

ANGFARTYGS A/B HALFDAN v. PRICE & PIERCE, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 290

Charter-party - Dead freight - Bundled and unbundled timber-Vessel to load a full and complete cargo of "mill sawn red and/or white firwood deals and/or battens and/or boards and/or scantlings and/or slatings in bundles and/or laths in bundles and/or planed boards and/or floorings (the quantity of slatings to consist of about 80 standards, the quantity of laths to consist of about 30 standards . . .), with a sufficient quantity of ends, eight feet and under, for broken stowage only . . ."-Vessel loaded with full cargo of 727 standards, including 294 standards of bundled boards-Full cargo 40 standards less than if unbundled timber had been shipped-Claim by shipowners for dead freight-Right of charterers to ship bundled timber, other than 80 standards of slatings and 30 standards of laths-Custom of trade-Whether overriding obligation to load full and complete cargo.

ESSEX LINE, LTD. v. SOCIETE CHARBONNIERE DE RECEPTION EN COMMUN.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 295

Charter-party - Breach - Cancellation - Second charter by defendants of plaintiffs' steamship, to come into operation immediately upon completion of previous charter-party-No cancellation clause in second charter-party-Notice given to owners that charterers proposed to cancel second charter-party-Claim by owners for damages, it being contended that they accepted the charterers' notice of their intention not to perform the second charter-party as an anticipatory breach and fixed the vessel for another voyage at a lower freight-Contention by charterers that they did not indicate an unequivocal intention not to perform the charter-party but merely put forward a proposal for cancellation; that the owners refused to accept the charterers' proposal to cancel, but in spite of such refusal fixed the vessel elsewhere - Counterclaim for nominal damages-Evidence of negotiations between parties.

THE "HURUNUI."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 305

Collision - Crossing courses - Duty of stand-on vessel where no action taken by giving-way vessel-Collision Regulations, Art. 21: "Where by any of these Rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. Note.-When, in consequence of thick weather or other causes, such vessel finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the giving-way vessel alone, she also shall take such action as will best aid to avert collision"-Collision between steam drifter Reclaim and steamship Hurunui off Lowestoft in broad daylight-Vessels on crossing courses, the Reclaim being the giving-way vessel-One short blast sounded and starboard helm action taken by Hurunui to give Reclaim more sea-room - Engines of Hurunui put astern when it became apparent that Reclaim was taking no action to avoid collision - Collision between stem of Hurunui and starboard side of Reclaim, Reclaim being sunk, with loss of nine of her crew of ten-Duty of Hurunui under Art. 21n - Whether she took "such action as will best aid to avert collision"-Suggestion that Hurunui should have reversed instead of or concurrently with her starboard helm action - Ability of drifters to alter course very quickly and in very small water space - Reclaim admittedly to blame - Appeal by Hurunui against decision of Sir Boyd Merriman, P., that she also was to blame for her failure to comply with the Note to Art. 21, in that she ought to have reversed earlier than she did.

THE "MILLIE."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 318

Limitation of liability-Wreck removal-Expenses incurred by canal company acting under statutory powers-Sinking of plaintiffs' steam barge Millie after collision in Manchester Ship Canal-Millie admittedly to blame- Wreck raised and removed by canal company-Claim by plaintiffs to limit liability-"Loss or damage . . . caused to property or rights" - Public and private Acts in conflict - Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 503-Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1900, Sects. 1, 3-Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1936, Sect. 32.

THE "POLO."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 325

Collision - Narrow channel - Collision between Greek steamship Chelatros and British steamship Polo in the Bosporus-Chelatros bound down from Black Sea; Polo bound up-Local navigation rule that all vessels "must, if it is possible, and can be done without danger," navigate on their own port side and pass starboard to starboard-Polo navigating on her proper side of mid-channel-Red light of Chelatros open fine on port bow of Polo-Starboard, then hard-a-starboard helm action taken by Polo with view to passing port to port-Port helm action taken in meantime by Chelatros - Signals exchanged - Contact between port bow of Polo and starboard bow of Chelatros.

THE "MATHURA."

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 333

Collision-Fog-"Lying stopped"-Collision between Norwegian motor vessel Brimanger and British steamship Mathura off Dungeness in dense fog-Mathura bound up Channel; Brimanger lying stopped after previous collision - "Lying stopped" signals sounded on hearing approaching Mathura-Engines put slow ahead just before collision-Alteration of course by Mathura-Speed.

C. A. PISANI & CO., LTD. v. BROWN, JENKINSON & CO., LTD., AND ROLAND ARGO WHARVES, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 340

Carriage of goods-Breach of contract-Shipments of marble slabs consigned to plaintiffs in two vessels-Arrangements made by first defendants at plaintiffs' request (1) for discharge of first ship's cargo on to quay (2) for discharge of second ship's cargo into lighter-Discharge effected by second defendants (stevedores)-Cargo found damaged on delivery-Evidence that cargo which plaintiffs had requested should be discharged on to quay was first discharged overside info lighter.

PAPADIMITRIOU v. HENDERSON.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 345

War risks insurance-Capture of vessel and cargo-Time policy effected with defendant underwriter covering risks excluded by f.c. & s. clause, also "Hostilities, warlike operations, civil war . . ."-Incorporation of Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) and Institute Time Clauses (Freight)-Insurance of plaintiff's steamer in sums of £15,000 on hull and machinery and £3500 on freight and/or chartered freight and/or anticipated freight-Charter of vessel for voyage from Odessa to Marseilles for carriage of lorries and spare parts consigned to agents for Spanish Republican Government-Bills of lading signed by master with destination "Oran," destination having been changed by agreement between owner and charterers-Master without copy of charter-party-Warnings received of possible interference by insurgent warships off Cap Bon-Request made by charterers that vessel be diverted to Malta; later, that she should return to Piraeus-Master instructed by wireless-Acknowledgment by master, giving nautical position-Vessel captured by insurgent warship 160 miles east of Malta and taken to Palma (Majorca)-Vessel condemned by insurgents as prize-Cargo belonging to class of conditional contraband-Constructive total loss of vessel-Claim by owner under policy-Whether loss due to wilful misconduct of owner in continuing on such a voyage-Evidence of warning received by owner-Suggestion that vessel was not properly documented, having insufficient proof of her neutrality-Measure of recovery for freight under policy-"Anticipated freight" - Institute Time Clauses (Freight), Clause 5 - Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 67 (1).

LONDON & PROVINCIAL LEATHER PROCESSES, LTD. v. HUDSON.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 352

Marine insurance-All risks-Extent of cover-Insurance of plaintiffs' skins "against all and every risk whatsoever, however arising . . . at and from any port or ports, place or places in Germany and whilst there for not exceeding three months (or held covered at a premium to be arranged) for processing and thence to any port or ports, place or places in the United Kingdom"-Skins in hands of German firm (P) for processing-Part of work sub-contracted to another German firm-Bankruptcy of P-Claim by sub-contractors to exercise general lien over skins (including plaintiffs') received from P-Refusal by German administrator in bankruptcy of P to return plaintiffs' skins-Claim by plaintiffs under policy-Whether plaintiffs suffered an accidental loss within the meaning of the policy.

MURRELL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. NORDENFJELDSKE STEAMSHIP SERVICES, LTD.

(1939) 64 Ll L Rep 359

Charter-party - Discharging expenses - Plaintiffs' steamship chartered to load cargo of fruit in Spain to be discharged in London-"24. The cargo to be brought to and taken from alongside at merchant's risk and expense, and to be properly stowed and discharged by a regular stevedore appointed by charterers or their agents, at the risk and expense of the steamer. . . . 25. The steamer to be discharged in the customary manner and where ordered by the charterers or their agents. The charge not to exceed what other steamers pay (at London according to the tariff in force on the 1st January, 1935). . . . 26. Steamer to be cleared by charterers' agents at loading ports and also at port or ports of discharge. Any bonus or other usual pecuniary consideration allowed by stevedore and/or wharfinger or dock company in respect of the berthing of the vessel to belong to agents or charterers and owners to have no claim thereto" - Discharge effected by stevedores appointed by defendants, agents for charterers - Tariff rate for discharge by stevedores: 16s. per 100 packages - Custom for wharfingers to make allowance to stevedores of 1d. per package off published rate, that rebate being passed on to the charterers or their agents-Deduction by defendants of discharging expenses (based on full tariff rate) from freight due to plaintiffs-Contention by plaintiffs that deduction should be based on customary reduced charge - Claim by plaintiffs for balance - Construction of charter-party-"Any bonus or other usual pecuniary consideration allowed by stevedore and/or wharfinger or dock company in respect of the berthing of the vessel. . . ."

Lloyd's Law Reports