i-law.com

ALEXANDER KENNEDY v. REX.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 1

Arson-Conviction-Fire following petrol explosion-Expert evidence as to effect of explosion-Application for leave to appeal from sentence of Supreme Court of Ceylon-Alleged misdirection of jury upon expert evidence-Alleged interest of members of jury in Ceylon Fire Insurance Association-Leave to appeal granted.

REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET "MACEDONIA" v. SLAUGHTER.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 4

Bill of lading-Charter-party-Demurrage -Discharging of cargo (London)- "The cargo shall . . . be discharged by the vessel in the customary manner as fast as the vessel can deliver during the ordinary working hours of the port, on to the quay and/or into lighters and/or craft and/or rafts and/or wagons and/or on to bogies and thereon stowed and/or stacked as customary at the port of discharge, the consignees having the right to select any one or more of these alternatives if customary and available at the time of discharge. In the execution of any work done beyond discharging cargo at the ship's rail or within reach of the ship's tackle or shore crane tackle, as the case may be, the shipowner shall act as stevedore with the liabilities only of such and not further or otherwise, but the shipowner shall not be liable for damage by fire, even though caused by the act or neglect of the shipowner or his servants or of any person for whom he is responsible" -Instructions given to ship by consignee to discharge overside into barges -Barges sent alongside by consignee- Strike of London lightermen shortly afterwards-Unavailability of discharge into lighters-Alternative method of discharge on to P.L.A. quay -Respective duties of shipowners and consignee - Intimation given by captain to consignee that discharge into lighters was impracticable and that arrangements should be made by the consignee with P.L.A. to enable the cargo to be discharged on to quay, otherwise demurrage would be claimed-Refusal by P.L.A. to permit discharge on to quay without consent of consignee-Failure of consignee to make necessary arrangements-Custom -Claim by shipowners for demurrage.

MARITIME INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. ASSECURANZ-UNION VON 1865.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 16

Insurance-Reinsurance-Enforceability of treaty-Conflict of laws-English or German law-Reinsurance treaty entered into between English and German companies-No policies issued-Liquidation of German company-Amount owing to English company-Contention by liquidator that English law was applicable and that therefore any claim by the English company was unenforceable -Arbitration-Award that treaty was governed by German law and that English company were therefore entitled to the amount claimed-Case stated-Intention of parties-Treaty executed by English company in England and finally executed by German company in Germany-Whether the Court was entitled to assume that the parties must have intended German law to apply, as the contract was invalid by English law-Inference to be drawn form clause in treaty providing that "if any difference or dispute of any kind whatsoever shall arise with reference to the meaning and/or effect of this reinsurance treaty or with reference to any transaction under this reinsurance treaty the same shall be referred to two independent arbitrators who are executive officers of marine insurance or marine reinsurance companies, one to be chosen by each party, and an umpire of who must also be an executive officer of a marine insurance or marine reinsurance company, chosen by said arbitrators before they enter upon arbitration. In the event of either party failing to nominate its arbitrator . . . then the Chairman for the time being of the Institute of London Underwriters shall nominate such arbitrator or umpire. The seat of the arbitration shall be in London, and the decision of the arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be, shall be final and binding on both parties without appeal."

TATTERSALL v. DRYSDALE.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 21

Motor insurance-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 36 (4)-Driving with consent of assured - Plaintiff insured with L. Co. in respect of Standard car - Purchase of another car through G & K, motor dealers, Standard car to be accepted by them in part exchange-Plaintiff's car handed over to G & K and sold by them-Loan to plaintiff of Riley car, property of G, director of G & K-G insured with defendant-Provision in G's policy that "the insurance shall extend to indemnify any person who is driving on the assured's order or with his permission in respect of any legal liability as aforesaid" -Claim against plaintiff in respect of accident while driving G's car -Right of plaintiff to indemnity under G's policy-Whether plaintiff entitled to indemnity under his own policy- Effect of Sect. 36(4): "Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the persons or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons."

BEN LINE STEAMERS, LTD. v. JOSEPH HEUREUX (LONDON), LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 27

Bill of lading-Indemnity-Shipment of galvanised sheets-Purchase f.o.b. by defendants from shippers - Mate's receipt describing condition as "Several bundles dirty before shipment" -Sheets in fact wet-stained before shipment - Communication from ship's agents to defendants: "We have to inform you that the captain . . . was forced to insert the following clause in the mate's receipt: 'Several bundles dirty before shipment' . . . Although the f.o.b. agents for the works can only be held responsible, we regret to say that these people refuse to hand us a letter of indemnity. In order to let you have clean bills of lading, we shall thank you if you will return us, duly signed, the enclosed letter of indemnity in duplicate" - Following indemnity signed by defendants: "In consideration of your handing us clean bills of lading, by the above vessel, for . . . 225 bundles galvanised sheets . . . the mate's receipt for which bears the following clause, viz.:- 'Several bundles dirty before shipment,' we hereby undertake and agree to pay on demand any claim that may arise, and to indemnify you against

all consequences of your so doing" -Sheets found seriously damaged at destination-Damage claim by consignees against ship settled-Claim by shipowners against defendants under indemnity agreement - Construction of agreement - Misrepresentation -Meaning of "several."

"YERO CARRAS" (OWNERS) v. LONDON & SCOTTISH ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 34

Marine insurance-Freight-Constructive total loss-Vessel chartered to proceed to Valparaiso to load cargo for Europe-Insurance of charter freight -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. (7) Warranted free from any claim consequent on loss of time whether arising from a peril of the sea or otherwise" -Stranding of vessel in Strait of Magellan on voyage to Valparaiso- Salvage agreement entered into by master with local salvors on Lloyd's form-Agreement to pay minimum remuneration of £6000 with provision for further award to be arbitrated upon-Notice of abandonment given to underwriters on ship-Subsequent compromise, underwriters on ship paying 100 per cent. and proportion of sue and labour charges, the shipowners retaining the ship and remaining responsible for all liabilities attaching thereto-Claim by shipowners under freight policy-Whether total or constructive total loss of freight-Cost of repairs to ship and of discharging salvors' lien-Port of repair-Expenses allowable - Sue and labour charges - Insured value of ship: £30,000 - Actual value: undamaged, £13,000; damaged, £2200-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 60.

CHURCHILL & SIM v. GODDARD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 46

Principal and agent-Sale of goods- Timber brokers-Sale of timber by foreign sellers to defendant, plaintiffs acting as del credere agents of sellers- "Payment to be made on receipt of and in exchange for shipping documents by approved acceptances of sellers' or authorised agents' drafts payable in London at four months from the date of bill of lading, or at buyers' option, in cash less 212 per cent. discount at three days' sight payable in London" -Sellers paid by plaintiffs against shipping documents-Documents forwarded to defendant-Bills of exchange drawn by plaintiffs upon defendant and accepted by him-Subsequent claim by defendant to reject timber as not being good tender under contract of sale-Arbitration pending-Right of plaintiffs (even assuming that defendant was entitled to reject in toto or to counterclaim in respect of a deficiency in quality) to claim against defendant as acceptor of bills-Whether acceptance of bills amounted to new contract.

EVANS v. EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 51

Motor Insurance-Claims under policy: (1) in respect of car damage; (2) to be indemnified in respect of third-party claims-Sums paid by insurance company to meet car damage-Subsequent repudiation of further liability on ground of misstatements in proposal form-"Q.: For how long has proposer and proposer's driver (i) held a driving licence? (ii) had a practical experience of motor car driving? A.: Five years" -Information contained in claim form filled up by claimant and addressed to company at their request that the assured had been driving for only six weeks-Knowledge of company through their employee deputed to receive and deal with such information-Whether company had constructive notice of right to repudiate at time when they, by their conduct, represented that the policy was valid-Position of company's employees considered-Arbitration -Award that claimant's answer was untrue, but that the company at all material times had knowledge that the answer was untrue (that knowledge, being possessed by the company's servants deputed to receive it, must be imputed to the company); and that therefore the company were estopped from repudiating liability - Case stated.

THE "AENEAS."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 59

Collision between Norwegian motor vessel Belita and British steamship Aeneas in Suez Canal - Belita bound south; Aeneas bound north-Duty of Aeneas under Canal Regulations to tie up in order to allow Belita to pass-Special light signals applicable to vessels navigating Canal-Duty of Aeneas to extinguish projector light when about to tie up; then to turn on overhead arc-light; and when tied up to extinguish overhead arc-light and to exhibit clusters of lights along her sides - Exhibition of cluster of lights on Aeneas's starboard side before tying up completed-Reversing of Belita's engines, resulting in her canting to starboard into Aeneas - Whether Belita proceeding at excessive speed - Contentions by Belita (1) that the stern of the Aeneas was allowed to swing out into the Canal; (2) that the Aeneas exhibited misleading lights.

SOCIETA ANONIMA COMERCIAL DE EXPORTACION E IMPORTACION (LOUIS DREYFUS & CIA.), LIMITADA v. NATIONAL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 74

Charter-party-Carriage of passengers- "Centrocon" charter-Vessel chartered to load grain in River Plate for carriage to Europe-Intimation by shipowners that they intended to arrange to take passengers on board for charter voyage-Claim by charterers for declaration that the carriage of passengers was expressly or impliedly inconsistent with the terms of the charter-party-Increased risk-Deviation -"The charterers are to have the full reach and burthen of the steamer including tween and shelter decks, bridges, poop, etc. (provided same are not occupied by bunker coals and/or stores)."

A. W. & E. PALMER v. CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 78

Motor insurance-Accident to plaintiffs' lorry - Third-party claim against plaintiffs-Claim by plaintiffs to be indemnified by defendant insurance company-Defence that cover had been varied by mutual consent restricting the use of the lorry to the Mepal (Cambs.) district, that the accident occurred outside that district, and that therefore the insurance company were not liable-Evidence of conversations between the parties and of contemporary documents.

MURRELL v. MALTBY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 80

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff lighterman engaged in tallying the delivery of bags of Cuban sugar into the barge D which were being unloaded by defendants' workmen from the steamship B at Charlton Buoys, River Thames-Fall of bag from sling-Res ipsa loquitur-Onus of proof-Evidence that Cuban sugar is exceptionally difficult and dangerous to handle-Necessity to use special care.

SALISBURY v. BLUE STAR LINE, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 85

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff - Fall of cleat from derrick unloading meat from defendants' steamer-Plaintiff passing over vessel to reach another steamer-Duty of defendants towards plaintiff - Licensee or trespasser.

DALGLIESH STEAM SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. JAMES WILLIAMSON & SON. ("THE ROSEWORTH")

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 87

Charter-party - Discharging expenses (Heysham)-"Cargo to be . . . taken from alongside at merchant's risk and expense . . . and being so loaded shall therewith proceed to Heysham . . . and there . . . deliver the same in the manner customary at Heysham"- Custom to deliver into railway wagons on the quay-Cargo so delivered-Payment by shipowners of railway company's (owners of port) account- Claim against consignees for proportion of charge applicable to that part of the discharge from the ship's rail- Meaning of "alongside."

BULK OIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. RIVER WEAR COMMISSIONERS. (THE "PASS OF BALLATER.")

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 91

Negligence-Docks-Damage to ship- Obstruction in dock-Claim by plaintiff shipowners against defendant dock-owners for damage sustained to their vessel Pass of Ballater while entering North Dock basin, Sunderland- Damage sustained forward while entering basin-Warning given by defendants' hailing-master of insufficient depth of water for vessel to enter dock-Whether warning given before or after vessel entered basin-Vessel made fast to jetty to await rise in water- Further damage sustained aft when made fast-Whether damage received from obstructions in basin-Whether obstructions constituted a nuisance in a public navigable highway-Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Consolidation and Amendment) Act, 1922, Sects. 5, 90-Duty of defendants to keep basin free from obstructions- Whether vessel an invitee or licensee in tying up at jetty.

THE "HOMEFIRE" AND THE "SANDWICH."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 105

FRESH WHARF, LTD., AND OTHERS v. NICHOLSON'S WHARVES, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 110

Rivers-Wharves (River Thames)-Right of access-Mutual rights of adjoining wharf-owners - Mooring of second plaintiffs' vessels at first plaintiffs' wharf adjoining defendants' wharf- Claim by plaintiffs for declarations that they were entitled to access for vessels coming to or leaving their wharf without obstruction by a vessel lying at defendants' wharf and overhanging the frontage of plaintiffs' wharf; that the defendants were bound to move such obstructing vessel when necessary; and for an injunction restraining defendants from obstructing the access of vessels to plaintiffs' wharf - Contention by defendants that plaintiffs' right of access was confined to vessels of a reasonable size for navigating the River Thames and berthing at plaintiffs' wharf, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to berth the vessels in question as they were not of reasonable size and prevented free access to defendants' wharf-Alleged danger to defendants' wharf and to vessels tied up there- Nuisance-Public right to navigate vessels of reasonable size-Meaning of "reasonable."

ANDREA SANGUINETI FU DAVIDE v. UGLEEXPORT.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 129

Charter-party-Ice clause-Provision of icebreakers by charterers-Delay in reaching loading port (Mariupol)- Claim by shipowners for demurrage and/or damages for detention-Arbitration -Award-Ice clause: "(1) In the event of the port of loading being inaccessible by reason of ice on vessel's arrival at Kertch . . . the charterers undertake to provide icebreaker to enable steamer to reach . . . [Mariupol] steamer being free of expenses for icebreaker. (2) Time lost by steamer waiting for icebreaker when entering loading port during 48 hours after her arrival at Kertch . . . not to count . . . as lay days. (3) Any detention to the steamer waiting for icebreaker . . . (above the time mentioned in Item 2) to count . . . as time for loading . . . to be paid by the charterers at the rate of £25 per day, from which time days saved in loading shall be deducted. (4) In order not to miss her cancelling date steamer must arrive at Kertch . . . not later than at noon the day previous to the cancelling date stipulated in Clause 11 and in the case of any delay through ice whilst on passage, or entering loading port . . . the cancelling date to be extended accordingly. (5) Captains must follow

official instructions issued by authorities for vessels convoyed by icebreakers through the ice"-Icebreaker regulations: "(4) The time and order of proceeding through the ice, as well as the number of vessels to be convoyed simultaneously, shall be fixed, if in port, by the harbour-master, and if at sea, by the master of the icebreaker. (5) The master of vessels following an icebreaker through the ice shall comply with the orders of the master of the icebreaker in regard to their movements in the ice and shall act in accordance therewith"-Construction-Obligation of charterers-Vessel taken by icebreaker in convoy with three other vessels in accordance with harbour-master's instructions-Whether vessel entitled to exclusive assistance-Case stated.

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 135

Canada-Railways-Freight agreement between competing companies-Joint acquisition of subsidiary company- "7. The new company shall be required to route outbound freight traffic (including grain milled or stored in transit) originating on the lines of the new company and destined via Edmonton or Morinville to competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties, in such a way that each of the parties shall receive on a revenue basis one-half the outbound freight traffic originating and destined as aforesaid, including such freight traffic routed by the shipper as well as such freight traffic unrouted by the shipper. Comparisons on a revenue basis of the traffic so received by each of the parties shall be made monthly, and any inequality of division in any month shall be rectified in succeeding months. The foregoing provisions in respect to freight traffic shall apply also to outbound express traffic and telegraph traffic respectively, originating on the lines of the new company and destined to competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties. . . ."-Construction-Contention by appellants that grain shipped by them from Northern Alberta to Prince Rupert and Victoria (only served by appellants) should be excluded from the equal division of freight in accordance with above agreement - Meaning of "competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties"-Finding of Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada in appellants' favour-Question of law stated by Railway Commissioners: "Whether upon the agreement made between the Canadian National Railway Company and the

Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the 29th day of January, 1929, and the facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth, grain shipped from stations on the Northern Alberta Railways to Prince Rupert or to Victoria for export, and exported from either of those ports to, say, the United Kingdom, is to be excluded from the comparison of freight traffic for the purpose of the equal division to be made under Art. 7 of the agreement as not being 'outbound freight traffic destined to competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties' as the expression is used in said article."- Finding reversed by Supreme Court of Canada.

LENSEN SHIPPING, LTD. v. ANGLOSOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 141

Charter-party-Breach-Claim by shipowners against charterers for balance of hire; cost of repairs to ship; and indemnity in respect of cargo claims- Vessel loading at Leningrad-List to port-Action taken by master to correct list-List increased-Vessel towed from berth to open sea-Sudden swing over to starboard-Part of deck cargo shot overboard, damaging vessel- Swing back to port-List due to fact that vessel was unknowingly aground in her loading berth-(1) Vessel to load "where she can lie safely always afloat or safe aground where steamers of similar size and draft are accustomed to lie aground in safety. (8) . . . Captain to be under orders of the charterers as regards employment, agency, or other arrangements. Charterers to indemnify owners against all consequences or liabilities arising from captain, officers or agents signing bills of lading or other documents or otherwise complying with such orders, as well as from any irregularity in steamer's papers or for over-carrying goods. Owners not to be responsible for shortage, mixture, marks, nor for number of pieces or packages, nor for damage to or claims on cargo caused by bad stowage or otherwise, the stevedore being employed by the charterers. (10) In the event of loss of time caused by drydocking or by other necessary measures to maintain the efficiency of steamer, or by . . . damage to hull or other accident preventing the working of the steamer and lasting more than 24 consecutive hours, hire to cease from commencement of such loss of time until steamer is again in efficient state to resume service. Should steamer be driven into port or to anchorage by stress of weather or in the event of steamer trading to shallow harbours, rivers or ports with bars or in case of accident to cargo, causing detention to steamer, time so lost and expenses incurred shall be for charterers' account,

even if caused through fault or want of due diligence by owners' servants. (12) Owners only to be responsible for delay in delivery of the steamer or for delay during the currency of this charter and for loss or damage to goods on board, if such delay or loss has been caused by want of due diligence on the part of owners or their manager, in making steamer seaworthy and fitted for the voyage or any other personal act or omission or default of owners or their manager. Owners not to be responsible in any other case nor for damage or delay whatsoever and howsoever caused even if caused by the neglect or default by owners' servants. Charterers to be responsible for loss or damage caused to steamer or owners by goods being loaded contrary to the terms of this charter or by improper or careless loading or stowage of goods or any other improper or negligent act on their part or that of their servants"-Finding of umpire that there was no want of due diligence on the part of the shipowners or their servants and that the charterers were liable-Case stated-Questions for opinion of Court; (3) Whether on the facts found the charterers were liable to pay hire for the time lost and to bear the damages and expenses consequent upon the shooting of the vessel's deck cargo, having regard to the provisions of Clause 12 of the charter-party; (4) whether on the facts found the provisions of Clause 10 of the charter-party entitled the charterers to treat the vessel as being off hire from 12 45 p.m. on June 24, when she shot her deck cargo and damaged her hull, until 9 45 a.m. on July 13, when she was again fit to resume service.

THE "SKARP."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 152

Bill of lading-Damage to cargo (timber)- Claim by shippers and consignees- Short delivery-Timber received for shipment "in good order and condition" at Parrsboro (N.S.) for Manchester - Bills claused "Condition quality description and measurement unknown" ("Condition" having been inserted by master)-Log entry by master that cargo was in very bad state -Cargo "to be redelivered in the like good order and condition"-Whether words of contract-"Order" and "condition"-Contention by plaintiff consignees (c.i.f. buyers from the shippers) that they took up the documents in reliance upon the bill of lading description-Estoppel-Effect of clause in c.i.f. contract providing that should any dispute arise respecting its fulfilment the buyers should not reject the goods shipped nor refuse immediate payment, but should take the matter to arbitration-Short delivery-"Bills of lading shall be conclusive evidence against the owners as establishing the aggregate number of pieces delivered to the steamer."

THE "HAGEN."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 161

Collision between sailing barge Lord Nelson and steamship Hagen in Barking Reach, River Thames-Lord Nelson tacking up-river; Hagen bound upriver behind Lord Nelson-Lord Nelson proceeding from north to south on her starboard tack-Tack not completed owing to presence of down-coming vessel, Lord Nelson turning back on her port tack-Decision to turn again and go away on her starboard tack on reaching mid-channel - Porting by Hagen-Whether port helm signal blown before Lord Nelson commenced her starboard tack-Duty of vessels under Thames By-laws-Rule 38.

BRITISH STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION v. CHAPMAN & SON.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 169

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

HILLEN v. I.C.I. (ALKALI), LTD.; PETTIGREW v. SAME.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 179

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by stevedores unloading barge-Claim against barge-owners-Hatch covers removed -Part cargo unloaded from barge into vessel alongside-Hatch covers replaced without fore and aft beam in position-No evidence that beam was in position when barge came alongside-Remaining cargo unloaded from top of hatch covers-Acquiescence of barge crew-Collapse of hatch covers, resulting in injuries to stevedores- Practice of loading from top of hatch covers known to be illegal by stevedores -Duty of barge-owners towards stevedores-Invitees or trespassers- Authority of barge crew-Docks Regulations, 1925, Regulations 33 (a) (b), 34 (b).

IN RE NAUTILUS STEAM SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. (APPLICATION OF GIBBS & CO.)

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 183

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930-Liquidation of shipping company-Collision between steamship Pear Branch and sailing vessel Dharma in 1925-Pear Branch arrested -Released on execution of joint bail bond by shipowners and ship's agents -Judgment against Pear Branch- Liability met by ship's agents-Reimbursed by shipowners through their insurers-Liquidation of company subsequent to passing of Act-Further claim against Pear Branch-No assignment of policies-Application by ship's agents that they were entitled, on meeting the further claim of the Dharma, to be subrogated to the rights of the Pear Branch against their insurers -Sect. 1 (1): "Where under any contract of insurance a person (hereinafter referred to as the insured) is insured against liabilities to third parties which he may incur, then-(a) in the event of the insured becoming bankrupt or making a composition or arrangement with his creditors; or (b) in the case of the insured being a company, in the event of a winding-up order being made, or a resolution for a voluntary winding-up being passed, with respect to the company, or of a receiver or manager of the company's business or undertaking being duly appointed, or of possession being taken, by or on behalf of the holders of any debentures secured by a floating charge, of any property comprised in or subject to the charge; if, either before of after that event, any such liability as aforesaid is incurred by the insured, his rights against the insurer under the contract in respect of the liability shall, notwithstanding anything in any Act or rule of law to the contrary, be transferred to and vest in the third party to whom the liability was so incurred."

PLUMB v. RAE.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 190

Negligent navigation-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on board dredger moored in Rye Harbour-Entry of defendant's small motor yacht-Collision with moorings of dredger- Attempt by plaintiff by use of winch to slacken moorings on approach of yacht -Plaintiff injured by winch-Responsibility for accident-Obstruction in river-Dredger exhibiting proper mooring lights-Duty of person navigating yacht in such circumstances- -Look-out.

THE "MIES."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 194

Negligence-Bad berth-Damage to plaintiff's motor vessel Mies while lying on berth at defendants' wharf-Inequalities in berth-Whether inequalities due to chalk and condenser outfalls from wharf or from the admitted working of the vessel's propeller over the berth both when coming alongside and when leaving berth-Warning given by berthing-master to vessel not to work her propeller-Depth of water available over berth-Evidence of berthing-master as to condition of berth before vessel's arrival.

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

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 203

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 and insured under her hull policies for £25,000-Abandonment to hull underwriters, 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 abandoned 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"-Whether total loss of freight necessarily arose from the constructive total loss of cargo or ship; from the fact that if temporary repairs sufficient to complete the voyage had been effected the voyage could only have been made at a loss to the shipowners; or from the fact that the cargo-owners found it unremunerative to continue the voyage-Consideration of expense thrown upon freight by reason of casualty.

MARIS AND ANOTHER v. LONDON ASSURANCE.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 211

Marine insurance-Loss-Sinking of Greek vessel at night after striking submerged rock off the island of Brusnik, in the Adriatic Sea-Claim by plaintiff shipowners (master and first mate of vessel)-Contention by underwriters that vessel was wilfully cast away- Plaintiffs' financial circumstances- Careless navigation of vessel in fine weather and smooth sea-Vessel abandoned soon after striking rock-Captain and crew saved-Chart and official log brought away-Submerged rock not marked on chart-No evidence of previous preparation or that master or crew brought away more than the barest belongings-Onus of proof-Anghelatos v. Northern Assurance Company, 19 Ll.L.Rep. 255.

THE "CASTOR."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 216

Collision between British steamship Trevose and Swedish motor vessel Castor in Las Palmas Bay-Both vessels bound to Las Palmas, the Trevose entering the harbour from the south and the Castor from the north-Vessels approaching starboard to starboard-Allegation by Trevose that Castor suddenly opened her red light when only two cables distant -Trevose's engines put half speed ahead and her helm put hard-a-port- Failure of Castor to signal her change of course-Look-outs.

THE "HJORTHOLM."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 223

Collision between British motor vessel Clan Macdougall and Danish steamship Hjortholm in Swansea entrance channel -Clan Macdougall bound down; Hjortholm bound up-channel to South Dock-Clan Macdougall, having left King's Dock and crossed the channel, proceeding down, with tug assistance, on the west side-Porting by Hjortholm across course of Clan Macdougall-Contention by Hjortholm that, navigating with the tide, the Hjortholm had the right of way-Seamanship-Collision Regulations, Art. 25-Whether "safe and practicable" for Hjortholm to keep to her own side of channel.

FRIEDLANDER AND ANOTHER v. LLOYDS BANK, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 233

Bank-Negligence-Agreement by plaintiffs (German subjects) to discount (or advance loan upon) bills of exchange drawn by B (representing German company) upon American company, payment of bills on due date to be covered by 100 per cent. Lloyd's policy-Deposit of £9000 with local branch of defendant Bank to cover premium-Instructions given by plaintiffs to bank manager to pay premium against cover note with pro forma policy attached, and when cover note and bills of exchange were in Bank's possession, Bank were to hand to B plaintiffs' letter instructing German bank to transfer Rm.760,000 from plaintiffs' account to B-Insurance effected by Lloyd's broker (introduced by B) with non-tariff company ("10 per cent. ourselves, 90 per cent. Lloyd's by reinsurance")-Intimation given by bank manager to plaintiffs that their instructions had been carried out-Knowledge of bank manager as to precise meaning of plaintiffs' instructions-Inference to be drawn from fact that manager accepted money presents from B (and others acting with him) subsequent to the insurance being completed-Whether bank manager acted in good faith- Liability of Bank.

A/S. DUX v. ARCOS, LTD.; A/S. STANDARD v. SAME.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 250

Charter-party - Ice clause - Damage to vessels by ice-Demurrage-Claims by shipowners against charterers for damage sustained by vessels in ice- "Charterers to supply steamer with icebreaker assistance, if required by the captain, to enable her to enter and/or leave the port of loading, free of all expenses to owners. Captain or steamer's agents to notify the captain of the port in due time of readiness to enter and/or leave the port of loading. Icebreaker assistance to be rendered within 48 hours after steamer's arrival at the ice edge or readiness to leave the port of loading. Any time lost in waiting for icebreaker assistance beyond 48 hours after readiness to proceed to be for charterers' account."- Duty of charterers under ice clause- Vessels taken out in convoy-Inadequacy of icebreaker assistance.

A/S. RENDAL v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 254

Charter-party - Ice clause - Damage to vessels by ice-Demurrage-Claim by shipowners against charterers for damage sustained by vessel in ice- "Charterers to supply steamer with icebreaker assistance, if required by the captain, to enable her to enter and/or leave the port of loading, free of all expenses to owners. Captain or steamer's agents to notify the captain of the port in due time of readiness to enter and/or leave the port of loading. Icebreaker assistance to be rendered within 48 hours after steamer's arrival at the ice edge or readiness to leave the port of loading. Any time lost in waiting for icebreaker assistance beyond 48 hours after readiness to proceed to be for charterers' account"-Duty of charterers under ice clause-Vessel taken out in convoy-Inadequacy of icebreaker assistance-Notice of claim clause: "Notice of any claim under this charter or under any bill of lading given hereunder must be given within 12 months of the date of the vessel's arrival at final port of discharge, otherwise all claims shall be deemed to be waived."-Notice to Arcos (defendants) admittedly out of time-Whether clause should be construed only to inure for the benefit of the shipowners-Legal position of Arcos considered-Constitution of U.S.S.R.

CROXFORD AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 258

Motor insurance-Road Traffic Act, 1934- Third parties-Claim against insurers by dependants of person killed in accident by insured-Accident in June, 1934 -Policy repudiated by insurers in July, 1934, on ground of misstatements in proposal form-Act of 1934 in force on Jan. 1, 1935-Judgment obtained against insured in February, 1935- Whether insurers required to satisfy judgment against insured, notwithstanding the repudiation of the policy before the Act came into force-Sects. 10 (1), (3).

THE "CORTON."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 261

Collision between steamships Lady Wolseley and Corton in Northfleet Hope, River Thames-Lady Wolseley at anchor, heading up river; Corton bound down river-Ebb tide-Allegations by Corton that Lady Wolseley dragged into mid-channel, that she had no anchor light burning and that she had no anchor watch-Evidence of independent witnesses as to place of collision -Balance of evidence.

LEARY v. "DEPTFORD" (OWNERS).

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 264

Workmen's compensation-Disease-"Arising out of and in the course of the employment"-Death of ship's steward from typhoid fever-Evidence that two others of the crew contracted the disease; and that all three (with other members of the crew) had been ashore at Durban but that the three had spent their time ashore separately-Inference to be drawn-Balance of probability-Proof -Award of learned arbitrator in favour of dependants of deceased steward-Whether arbitrator's decision was based on mere conjecture-Appeal by shipowners.

THE "MINCING LANE."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 269

Collision between sailing barge Coombdale and dumb barge Buckhound, in tow of tug Mincing Lane, in Blackwall Reach, River Thames-Coombdale sunk- Coombdale, bound up river, crossing river on the port tack ahead of tug Regent, also bound up-Mincing Lane overtaking Regent on her port side- Mincing Lane's engines put full speed ahead-Sudden winding of Coombdale on to starboard tack-Contention by Coombdale that she was unable to sail out her port tack owing to the failure of the Regent to give way and that the Mincing Lane should have observed the position and taken action to avoid the Coombdale-Whether Coombdale's alteration of tack due to the presence of a dumb barge driving up to the northward -Look-out.

THE "NUTHATCH."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 274

Collision between motor barge Helen of Troy and fish carrier Nuthatch in Lower Pool, River Thames, in fog- Helen of Troy sunk-Helen of Troy bound up; Nuthatch bound down river -Starboard helm action taken by both vessels on sighting each other-Whether helm action taken by Nuthatch sufficient- Handgear-Visibility- Seamanship.

FRESH WHARF, LTD., AND OTHERS v. NICHOLSON'S WHARVES, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 279

Rivers-Wharves (River Thames)-Right of access-Mutual rights of adjoining wharf-owners-Mooring of second plaintiffs' vessels at first plaintiffs' wharf adjoining defendants' wharf- Claim by plaintiffs for declarations that they were entitled to access for vessels coming to or leaving their wharf without obstruction by a vessel lying at defendants' wharf and overhanging the frontage of plaintiffs' wharf; that defendants were bound to move any obstructing vessel when necessary; and for an injunction restraining defendants from obstructing the access of vessels to plaintiffs' wharf- Contention by defendants that plaintiffs' right of access was confined to vessels of a reasonable size for navigating the River Thames and berthing at plaintiffs' wharf, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to berth the vessels in question as they were not of reasonable size and prevented free access to defendants' wharf-Alleged danger to defendants' wharf and to vessels tied up there-Nuisance-Public right to navigate vessels of reasonable size-Meaning of "reasonable"-Decision of learned Judge that plaintiffs entitled to declarations claimed in respect of certain of their vessels- Damages-Notice given to defendants by plaintiffs that they wished to berth the vessel G S and asking that defendants should make necessary arrangements at their wharf to permit passage to plaintiffs' wharf-Refusal by defendants to accede to plaintiffs' request without indemnity against possible damage- Refusal by plaintiffs to give indemnity, plaintiffs taking the G S away and berthing her down river-Plaintiffs' berthing costs, &c., claimed as damages -Whether plaintiffs should have mitigated damages by acceding to defendants' request for indemnity.

TYNEDALE STEAM SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 282

Charter-party - Hire - Discharging expenses-Vessel bound from Archangel to Liverpool, laden with timber, including deck cargo-Shifting of deck cargo following list in heavy weather off Liverpool, foremast and part deck cargo subsequently falling overboard-Delay in discharge-Forward winches out of action-Hire of floating derricks to discharge forward part of deck cargo -Cost of steam cranage and derrick barges-"(2) Owners to provide and pay for all provisions and wages, for insurance of the steamer, for all deck and engine-room stores and maintain her in a thoroughly efficient state in hull and machinery during service. Owners to provide one winchman per hatch. If further winchmen required, or of if stevedore refuses to work with the crew, charterers to provide and pay qualified winchmen from land. (3) . . . The steamer to be fitted and maintained with winches, derricks, wheels and ordinary runners capable of handling lifts up to three tons. . . . (10) In the event of loss of time caused by drydocking or by other necessary measures to maintain the efficiency of steamer, or by deficiency of men or owners' stores, breakdown of machinery, damage to hull or other accident preventing the working of the steamer and lasting more than 24 consecutive hours, hire to cease from commencement of such loss of time until steamer is again in efficient state to resume service. Should steamer be driven into port, or to anchorage by stress of weather, or in the event of steamer trading to shallow harbours, rivers or ports with bars or in case of accident to cargo, causing detention to steamer, time so lost and expenses incurred shall be for charterers' account, even if caused through fault or want of due diligence by owners' servants. (12) Owners only to be responsible for delay in delivery of the steamer or for delay during the currency of this

charter and for loss or damage to goods on board, if such delay or loss had been caused by want of due diligence on the part of owners or their manager, in making steamer seaworthy and fitted for the voyage or any other personal act or omission or default of owners or their manager. Owners not to be responsible in any other case nor for damager or delay whatsoever and howsoever caused even if caused by the neglect or default by owners' servants" -Arbitration-Case stated-Questions for opinion of Court: "(a) Whether upon the true construction of the charter and upon the facts as herein found, the shipowners are entitled to hire for the vessel in respect of the time occupied in discharge; (b) whether the additional costs of discharge, etc., are for account of shipowners or charterers."

JOLLANDS v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 287

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff-Plaintiff in charge of motor lorry engaged in loading timber in Surrey Commercial Docks-Contention that lorry was negligently loaded by defendants' timber porters.

BLACKETT & CO., LTD. v. ARONSON.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 288

Principal and agent-Claim by Portuguese agents to recover from principal moneys expended on principal's behalf, commission, &c.-Purchase of pitprops -Agreement between parties that principal should give written or cabled authority to the agents from time to time to buy Portuguese pitprops for shipment to England; by all incidental expenses; and open with Lisbon bank irrevocable sight credits in sterling up to amount covering values of shipments; and that agents should retain only agreed commission of one escudo per ton and the usual agency fee -Failure by principal to provide sufficient credits-Expenses incurred by agents on principal's behalf without security-Agency agreement repudiated by agents-Liability of principal- Whether agents could have mitigated their damages.

NORMAN v. GRESHAM FIRE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 292

Motor insurance-Third parties-Plaintiff injured in collision in September, 1934, with lorry belonging to T., Ltd., and alleged to be covered by defendant insurance company for a year from January, 1934-Judgment against T., Ltd.-Liquidation of T., Ltd.-Judgment unsatisfied-Claim by plaintiff to be indemnified by defendants-Dispute as to whether contract of insurance was entered into between T., Ltd., and the defendants covering the lorry at the time of the accident-Concealment in proposal from.

THE "PHILIP T. DODGE."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 305

Negligent navigation-Pleading-Collision between steamship Philip T. Dodge and bascule of defendants' bridge in course of construction at Gaspe Quebec- Vessel navigating through bridge- Action brought by owners of bridge against steamer-Steamer's plea of inevitable accident-Finding of lower Courts that collision was due to negligence of master of Philip T. Dodge in navigating at excessive speed and, while at speed, in taking helm action to avoid a wharf ahead-Negligent helm action not pleaded or cross-examined to-Appeal by Philip T. Dodge.

THE "CIRCE."

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 310

Collision between sailing barges Alumina and Circe in Halfway Reach, River Thames-Both vessels bound down river, the Circe overtaking the Alumina on her starboard side-Sailing barge Cetus also overtaking Alumina on her port side-Wind aft on starboard quarter of Alumina-Allegation by Alumina that Circe passed too close, blanketing the Alumina and causing her to broach to and swing towards the Circe-Duty of overtaking vessel-Whether the letting go of the Alumina's foresail contributed to the collision-Thames By-laws, Rules 31, 37.

THE "BENGALI" (EX "THEOPHILE MASSART").

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 315

Salvage-Services rendered by trawlers Vinur and Lorinda to trawler Bengali (ex Theophile Massart) off Iceland- Bengali, with engines broken down, drifting ashore-S.O.S. sent out- S.O.S. answered by Vinur and Lorinda, who were requested immediately to come to Bengali's assistance-Bengali subsequently taken in tow by trawler Lacennia-Claim by Vinur and Lorinda -Loss of fishing-Evidence as to value.

HOLLOWAY v. DONALDSON LINE, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 321

Master and servant-Personal injuries- Common employment-Plaintiff, servant of cattle-owner, employed in defendants' ship to superintend the care of cattle on board-Plaintiff engaged by master under articles by which plaintiff undertook to perform certain duties in return for his passage, food and a nominal sum as pay- Injuries sustained in falling from ladder-Negligence of member of crew -Doctrine of common employment.

LOCKER & WOOLF, LTD. v. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 325

Fire insurance-Non-disclosure-Proposal form-Insurance of premises of L & W Ltd. (plaintiffs) with defendants and other insurers - Fire - Claim - "(2) Have you ever suffered loss by fire? Yes, £5, Sea. (4) Has this or any other insurance of yours been declined by any other company? No"-Evidence that W, engaged in business on his own account, had a fire in 1919; that L & W, when trading in partnership in 1930, had applied to the N Co. for a policy covering their motor vehicles, and that the N Co. had declined such proposal on the ground of non-disclosure-Arbitration -Power of arbitrator to decide upon the question of the materiality of facts which defendants allege should have been disclosed-Admissibility of expert evidence upon question of materiality-Sale of salvage upon instructions of assessors engaged by insurers-Sale unopposed by defendants -Whether amounting to waiver- "The company [defendants] . . . may, without thereby incurring any liability, and without diminishing the right of the company to rely on any conditions of this policy, enter, take or keep possession of the building or premises where the destruction or damage has happened, and may take possession of or require to be delivered to them any of the property hereby insured and may keep possession of and deal with such property for all reasonable purposes and in any reasonable manner"-Award in favour of defendants -Case stated.

FOCKE & CO., LTD. v. THOMAS ROBINSON, SONS & CO., LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 334

Sale of goods-Rejection by buyers-Sale of 500 boxes of Victorian Neville Grey eggs-"Quality and condition: Australian Government certificates to be final and deemed to cover total shipments" -"Goods to be at buyers' risk as soon as shipment is effected. Clean documents to be sufficient warranty that goods were shipped in good order and condition"-Contention by buyers that eggs shipped were not in accordance with the contract-Construction of contract-Finality of Australian Government certificates-Case stated pursuant to Sect. 9 of Arbitration Act, 1934-Questions for the opinion of Court: "(1) Are the certificates of the Commonwealth of Australia final and conclusive against the buyers as to the quality and/or condition and/or weight of the eggs delivered? (2) Are the words 'Goods to be at buyers' risk as soon as shipment is effected. Clean documents to be sufficient warranty that goods were shipped in good order and condition' final and conclusive against the buyers as to the quality and/or condition and/or weight of the eggs delivered?"

BROOKE v. COUNTY FIRE OFFICE, LTD.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 338

Motor insurance-Claim by plaintiff to be indemnified by defendants against third-party claim-Arbitration-Award that plaintiff was not entitled to indemnity -Motion by plaintiff asking Court to remit award on ground that the arbitrator had not set out his findings but had merely found in defendants' favour - Misconduct - Objection by defendants.

McKINSTRY v. "JOHANNES" (OWNERS).

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 339

Negligence-Personal injuries-Claim by plaintiff to be indemnified by defendant shipowners in respect of a claim for workmen's compensation paid by plaintiff to one of his employees- Employee injured by fall of sling load of timber which was being unloaded from defendants' vessel - Alleged inefficiency of winches-Contributory negligence.

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

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 340

Marine Insurance-Freight-Partial loss -Policy covering "chartered freight and/or freight"-Cargo loaded for U.K. under charter providing for lump sum freight-Stranding of vessel during chartered voyage - Salvage agreement entered into by master with salvage company on "no cure no pay" terms-Notice of abandonment subsequently given to hull underwriters, 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, cargo taken in repaired vessel to Rotterdam and vessel sold there by salvors for breaking up)-Claim by shipowners for partial loss under freight policy.

Lloyd's Law Reports