i-law.com

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

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Sale of goods (scrap iron)- Breach- Sale by defendants to plaintiff of bundles of scrap iron to implement plaintiff's contract with Swedish buyers- Scrap mixed with other scrap supplied by K - Rejection by Swedish buyers of whole consignment on ground of quality- Scrap to be free from deleterious materials - Construction - Onus of proof

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

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 6

Sale of goods (pit props) - Rejection by buyers (defendants)- Sale by plaintiffs of "entire production of pit props available for 1931 shipment"- Various lengths- Top diameters: 212 in.-312 in. to 212 in.-11 in.- "(22) In the event of any dispute arising in connection with measurement or acceptance of goods as to quantity, quality, condition or dimensions such dispute shall be referred to the decision of the gosbracker at port of loading, whose ruling shall be final and binding on both parties" - Preliminary questions for the Court: (1) Whether the defendants were bound to accept timber felled earlier than the winter of 1930/31; (2) Whether the defendants were entitled to receive in each shipment or parcel of a particular length props ranging fairly between specified extreme diameters of tops for such lengths so that by such range there should be approximately 50 per cent. thick and 50 per cent. thin top diameters; (3) (a) What questions were within the jurisdiction of the gosbracker, and in particular whether he had jurisdiction to decide questions (1) and (2); (b) Whether the decisions relied on by the plaintiffs were decisions of the gosbracker; (c) Whether the circumstances in which the said decisions were obtained and/or given as shown by the documents disclosed by the plaintiffs were such as to entitle the defendants to say they were not bound by such decisions; and (a) To what extent the decisions of the gosbracker were binding on the defendants, if at all

THE "FALLS CITY."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 17

Bill of lading- Damage to cargo (wheat) by sea water- Claim by cargo-owners against shipowners- Unseaworthiness or latent defect- Cracked shell plate in side and defective bolts in deck- Evidence that area surrounding crack was sealed and painted before voyage in question

THE "EGYPT."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 21

Salvage-Services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiffs to gold cargo ex steamer Egypt, sunk off Ushant- Plaintiffs under contract with U Co. to locate wreck with view to salvage by U Co.-Abandonment of project by U Co. after alleged location of wreck by plaintiffs - Subsequent location of wreck by S Co. and salvage by them -Whether plaintiffs' investigations assisted S Co. in locating wreck- Relative positions of plaintiffs and cargo-owners considered

VANDEPITTE v. PREFERRED ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 41

Canada - Motor insurance - Third party risk - Insurance Act of British Columbia, 1925, Sects. 10, 24, 152, 153, 154- Policy issued by respondents covering B against legal liability for bodily injuries - Appellant injured by car driven by B's daughter (a minor)- Judgment for damages against B's daughter unsatisfied- Right of recovery against respondents- Whether B's daughter insured within the meaning of Sect. 24- Position in law and in equity - Estoppel -

THE "BATHORI."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 48

Prize- Capture and destruction of enemy vessel- Vessel sunk by act of war contrary to terms of safe conduct- Right of owners to claim upon conclusion of peace - Whether Treaty of Trianon deprived claimants of their right, if any- Claimants domiciled in Fiume, now a free State- Status of Fiume at date of treaty

THE "LALANDIA."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 55

Practice - Writ - Collision action - Defendants a foreign corporation- Service upon English agents- Contention that defendants were carrying on their business within the jurisdiction through their English agents- Motion to set aside writ and service

DEN NORSKE SYD-AMERIKA LINJE v. ANGLO - SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 61

Charter-party - Breach - Failure of charterers to carry out charter voyage - Substituted voyage earning less freight but taking less time- Measure of damages- Items to be taken into account.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. WRIGHT AND OTHERS.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 62

Coal mines- Prices (bunker coal)- District scheme administered by Executive Board - Regulation of production, supply, sale and class of coal- Meaning of "class" - Resolutions of Board fixing separate minimum prices (1) for East and West Coast ports and (2) for different ports on same coast- Whether ultra vires- Coal Mines Act, 1930, Sects. 1, 2, 3, 18- Midland (Amalgamated) District (Coal Mines) Scheme, 1930

THE "NAPIER STAR."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 69

Collision- Damages- Reference- Objection to Registrar's report- Damage to plaintiffs' vessel- Temporary repairs effected- Finding that plaintiffs had sufficient business reasons not to effect permanent repairs of collision damages at the time owners' repairs were executed - Assessment of damages - Detention for permanent repairs not yet effected

THE "KAITUNA."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 71

Collision between steamships Selje and Kaituna off Cape Otway, South Australia- Vessels on crossing courses of 8 deg.- Whether end-on or crossing case (with Kaituna the stand-on vessel) - Collision Regulations, Arts. 18, 19, 21- Vessels manoeuvring in heavy ocean swell

TEALBY & CO. v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 79

Sale of goods- Breach- Sale of timber by defendants to plaintiffs- Undertaking by defendants not to sell at lower prices to anybody else- Preferential sale to H & Co.- Effective date- Fraud - Warranty

ST. QUENTIN SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 88

Charter-party - Claim by shipowners against charterers for indemnity against award of compensation to stevedore by Russian Court in respect of personal injuries- "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"- Winchmen provided by charterers- Winchmen informed by shipowners that winches should be used in double gear- Accident to stevedore following use of winch in single gear without knowledge of shipowners - Finding that winch was properly equipped for loading in single gear and that accident was due to the negligence of winchman - Arbitration - Award in favour of shipowners- Award upheld.

CONSTABLE v. STUARTSON (INSURANCE), LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 91

Master and servant- Departmental head of insurance office- Reduction of staff - Dismissal- Reasonable notice

ABERDEEN GRIT COMPANY v. ELLERMAN'S WILSON LINE.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 92

Carriage of goods by sea- Damage to cargo (iron grit and shot)- Carriage from Aberdeen to Boston via Newcastle- Delivery to defenders' agents at Aberdeen, cargo being carried to Newcastle in coasting steamer belonging to A company- Transhipment by lighter to defenders' steamer at Newcastle- Damage suffered while in lighter- Negligence of lightermen- Shipping Instructions: "All goods awaiting shipment are received and carried subject to the conditions of the [defenders'] receipt and/or bills of lading, and also to the conditions and/or regulations of any steamboat, railway or canal company, or persons by whom the goods may be conveyed and all goods are at the risk of the owners of the said goods until actually shipped on board the steamer"

NATIONAL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. SOCIEDAD ANONIMA COMERCIAL DE EXPORTACION E IMPORTACION (LOUIS DREYFUS & CO., LTD.).

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 99

Charter-party- Loading expenses- Winchmen - "(17) The cargo to be brought to and taken from alongside at charterers' risk and expense. (18) The charterers shall provide stevedores to load the cargo at a cost to the vessel of 25 cents gold per English ton"- Cost of winchmen supplied by stevedores - Whether part of expense of loading of cargo by stevedores - Umpire's finding that "the trade union regulations have for many years been effective in the sense that vessels never employ members of their own crews to act as winchmen and any attempt to do so on any vessel would result in the withdrawal of all stevedore labour and would thus make it impossible to load such a vessel"

PIPER v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 103

Insurance (Marine)- Damage to plaintiff's yacht owing to stranding following breaking of topmast- Allegation that plaintiff connived at stranding- Over-valuation - Non-disclosure- Whether policy avoided

BRITAIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. DONUGOL, OF CHARKOFF.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 123

Charter-party- Detention by ice- "(25) Should the steamer be ordered to an ice-bound loading port the charterers undertake, at their expense, to provide icebreakers to enable the steamer to reach, load at, and leave the said port, it being understood that any detention caused by ice to the steamer in reaching the said port of loading and the open sea after loading shall in the first case count as time for loading and in the second case as time on demurrage to be paid by the charterers at charter rate, from which time days saved in loading shall be deducted . . . Time lost by steamer waiting for icebreaker, when on passage to loading port, namely, up to 48 hours after her arrival at Kertch . . . is to count neither as lay days nor as demurrage or detention, but the said 48 hours to apply once only"- Steamer detained by ice owing to failure of charterers to provide adequate icebreaking assistance - Breach- Measure of damages- Whether Clause 25 applied or whether shipowners entitled to damages at large

HASELDINE v. HOSKEN.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 127

Insurance- Solicitors Indemnity policy- Claim - Security for costs provided by plaintiff solicitor acting for A in action against B- Subsequent agreement between plaintiff and A that plaintiff should be reimbursed by a proportion of amount recovered from B- A's claim against B dismissed- Claim by B against plaintiff for damages for maintenance and/or champerty- Claim settled on payment of £950- Whether plaintiff entitled to recover under policy subscribed by defendant insuring plaintiff against loss arising from any claim which might be made against him "by reason of any neglect, omission or error" on his part in his professional capacity as solicitor

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

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 131

Contract- Indemnity- Defendant contractors engaged in reconstruction of plaintiffs' railway bridge- One of defendants' workmen killed and another injured by open carriage door of passing train- Negligence of plaintiffs' servants - Compensation claims against plaintiffs settled - Claim by plaintiffs against defendants under indemnity clause in contracts- "34 (a) The contractor shall be responsible for and provide against all risks and contingencies whatever that may arise in respect of the works, and shall be liable to make good and pay for any interruption, accident, damage, loss or injury of, or to any person, property, or rights, whether public or private, and any loss of life caused in connection with the works, and shall indemnity the company against all actions, claims, losses, costs and expenses in respect of any such interruption, accident, damage, loss or injury as aforesaid or any such loss of life (even though the company may be primarily or jointly with the contractor liable therefor) and against all liability under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act, 1926, or any amendment thereof or otherwise . . . (b) For the purposes of more effectually indemnifying the company against all claims in respect of accident, injury or loss of life to workmen employed by the contractor or any sub-contractor, the contractor shall forthwith take out a policy of insurance in the joint names of the company and the contractor with an insurance company to be approved by the engineer, insuring the company and the contractor against their or his liabilities in respect of any such accident, injury, or loss of life, including all liabilities under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, the Lead Paint (Protection against Poisoning) Act, 1926, or any amendment thereof or otherwise. . . . The said policy shall also include any claim or claim by third parties in respect of any injury (fatal or non-fatal) to persons or damage to property, plant, materials or things of any kind in connection with the carrying out of the works . . ." - Construction

BROSTROM & SON v. DREYFUS & CO.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 136

Charter-party- Safe port- Vessel ordered to Londonderry (a port not excluded by the charter-party)- Vessel of such length that river bends made the port unsafe without tug assistance - No tugs available at Londonderry - Tugs ordered from Clyde - Whether expense should be borne by shipowners- Finding of umpire that Londonderry was not a safe port within the meaning of the charter-party for that particular vessel; that it was reasonable and necessary for tugs to be brought from the Clyde; and that that expense should be borne by the charterers - Case stated

HERBERT v. POLAND.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 139

Insurance (fire)- Destruction of bungalow - Claim- Defence that bungalow was deliberately set on fire at the instigation of plaintiff- Criminal offence- Onus of proof

"ANASTASSIA" (OWNERS) v. UGLEEXPORT CHARKOW.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 146

Charter-party- Detention by ice- Obligation of charterers- "In the event of the loading port being inaccessible by reason of ice on vessel's arrival at the edge of ice . . . the charterers undertake to provide icebreaker assistance to enable steamer to reach, load at and leave loading port, steamer being free of expenses for icebreaker assistance" - Vessel at edge of ice preventing free passage to Mariupol - Icebreaker assistance rendered by charterers for four days, icebreaker then leaving vessel for 17 days - Charterers' contentions: (a) that their only obligation was to give icebreaker assistance at the edge of the ice and that therefore they had no further continuing obligation; (b) that they had in accordance with the general practice requested the port authority to provide icebreaker assistance and that they were under no further obligation - Whether charterers' obligation continued until vessel's arrival at loading port- Onus of proof

AKTIES. DAMPSKIBS. HEIMDAL v. RUSSIAN WOOD AGENCY.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 151

Charter-party- Detention by ice- Obligation of charterers- "Charterers to supply the steamer with icebreaker assistance if required by the captain to enable her to enter or leave port of loading free of all expenses to the owners. . . . 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 beyond 48 hours after readiness to proceed, to be for charterers' account"- Vessel leaving Leningrad - Geographical extent of charterers' obligation - Alleged ice damage to vessel owing to delay

IN RE SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 156

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

LAZARD BROTHERS & CO. v. BANQUE INDUSTRIELLE DE MOSCOW. (MIDLAND BANK, LTD., GARNISHEES.)

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 159

International law- Garnishee- Claim by appellants (judgment creditors of Russian bank) to garnishee debt owing by respondents to Russian bank- Judgment entered in favour of appellants against Russian bank in default of appearance- Order nisi granted by Roche, J.; refused by C.A.- Points for decision: (1) whether the Russian bank was a legal entity at the date of service of the writ; (2) whether, if the Russian bank were in existence, there was proper service of the writ; and (3) whether there was in fact, at the date of the garnishee order, any debt due from the Russian bank to the respondents - Evidence of foreign law- Duty of parties seeking to serve notice of writ out of the jurisdiction- R.S.C., Order 11, r. 8

THE "HALCYON."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 171

Collision between barge Eva (in tow of tug Bruno) and motor vessel Halcyon off Blackwall Point, River Thames, in broad daylight - Eva bound up; Halcyon bound down- Obstruction in northern water- Congested channel- Eva navigating on south side- Flood tide of little force- Respective duties

THE "LADY EMERALD."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 176

Collision- Damages- Reference- Motion to set aside Registrar's report- Loss of use of vessel- Allowance by Registrar in respect of detention for repairs- Loss of charter- Substituted charter at less freight - Right to recover under both heads

WHITING v. NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 179

Insurance (Marine)- Damage by mould to consignments of paper hats shipped in wooden cases- Fresh water damage or inherent vice - Inference to be drawn from large number of sound shipments over long period of time- Measure of damages- Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 71 (3)

MERCHANT TRADING COMPANY, LTD. v. WHITE SEA TIMBER TRUST, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 181

Sale of goods (redwood doors)- Cancellation by buyers - "Property in goods to be deemed for all purposes . . . to have passed to buyers when goods have been put on board. . . . In the event of the imposition in this country of any import duty on manufactured doors . . . it shall be considered and accepted as force majeure applicable to buyers and/or sellers that is to say if buyers and sellers cannot agree which side is to bear any such import duty or part thereof it will be the right of either party to cancel the contract for any quantity remaining undelivered on the date when such import duty becomes chargeable"- Passing of Import Duties Act, 1932, imposing duty on wooden doors- Parcel of goods already shipped - Notice given to sellers by buyers that they would refuse further goods except upon payment by sellers of import duty- No reply- Formal notice of cancellation given by buyers - Documents taken up by buyers under protest, Customs duties also being paid by buyers under protest - Effect - Arbitration - Case stated - Questions for opinion of Court: (1) whether cancellation covered goods already shipped; (2) even if it did, whether the buyers had not lost their right to reject goods already shipped by taking up shipping documents and paying Customs duties under protest

D/S. HOSANGERS REDERI v. ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING CO., LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 184

Charter-party - Freight - "(35) In the event of steamer being ordered to the United Kingdom to discharge with winter deckload, all rates of freight to be increased by 10s. per standard, making the basis rate 69s. per standard . . . Should steamer load more than a winter deckload and less than her full summer capacity, the difference to be settled mutually between owners and charterers, the calculation to be based on steamer's average previous White Sea intakes . . ."- Deckload in excess of average winter deckload- Calculation of rate of freight

GURNEY v. GRIMMER.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 189

Insurance- Reinsurance- Compromised or arranged total loss- Reinsurers "to pay only in the event of the total constructive compromised and/or arranged total loss of the vessel"- Stranding of vessel- Notice of abandonment given to insurers and not accepted- Subsequent settlement in full with owners on basis of constructive total loss plus a reduced sum in respect of sue and labour charges - Claim by insurers against reinsurers on 100 per cent. basis

THE "BAARN."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 199

Practice- Collision - Damages - Payment - Collision between Chilean steamship Bio-Bio and Dutch steamship Baarn off Ecuador- Admission of liability by Baarn- Consent to reference under R.S.C., Order 52, r. 23- Bail lodged by Baarn- Application by Bio-Bio to fix day for reference- Registrar notified by Baarn that they had paid Bio-Bio in Chile- Whether a good discharge- Chilean Code, Art. 1598

THE "HATANO."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 208

Salvage or towage- Services rendered by tug Nora to disabled steam trawler Hatano off Lavernock Point, Bristol Channel- Temporary breakdown of engines- Disputed position of trawler - Possibility of drifting ashore- Trawler taken in tow to Cardiff

FITZGERALD v. "LONA" (OWNERS).

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 212

Bill of lading- Discharge of timber (London) - Alleged wrongful discharge by shipowners on to quay- Claim by consignees to recover landing charges - Incorporation of charter-party terms providing for discharge "on to quay and/or into lighters . . . 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" - Selected method of discharge into lighters- Strike of lightermen- Availability of lighters- Whether shipowners justified in landing cargo on quay and without notice to consignees

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

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 219

Arbitration- Award- Error in law on face - Sale of timber- "The goods to be shipped about fairly spread during navigation season 1931 from White Sea ports and Leningrad at sellers' option and at their convenience, but shipments must be made in such a way that not more than one steamer shall arrive at each of the ports of destination at a time . . . To facilitate chartering, buyers are to declare ports of destination and quantities to each port for at least 10,000 Russian cubic fathoms not later than by Feb. 15, 1931, and for the balance not later than by May 15, 1931 . . ."- Refusal by buyers to accept shipments per steamships J and T on ground of alleged unfair spreading- Finding of umpire that there was no breach by sellers in respect of the shipments and that the buyers broke their contract in failing to declare ports of destination in respect of cargoes shipped by the J and T

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

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 224

Railways - Charges - Undue preference - Services rendered by respondent railway company at their quays and wharves - Introduction of inclusive rates covering lighterage by accredited agents and respondents' services- Allegation that respondents' charge for their services to claimants (who were other than accredited agents) exceeded sum retained by respondents out of the inclusive rates where the accredited agents were concerned and constituted an undue preference; or that there was undue preference to the respondents themselves- Motion by respondents that facts alleged disclosed no cause of action under Railway Traffic Acts - Railway & Canal Traffic Act, 1854, Sect. 2- Railway & Canal Traffic Act, 1888, Sect. 27- Whether charges within purview of Acts, it being alleged that there was no element of railway carriage involved- - Onus of proof

SAVORY & CO. v. LLOYDS BANK.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 231

Banking - Negligence - Crossed bearer cheques stolen by employees of true owner-Cheques paid by employees into branch of defendant bank-Branch directed to credit employees' accounts at another branch-Duty of bank on opening of accounts-Inadequate information passed on by receiving branch to customer's branch-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, Sect. 82

THE "YEWVALLEY."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 252

Collision between H.M. destroyer Stuart and steamship Yewvalley off Cross Sand Light-vessel, North Sea, in fog- Vessels on opposite courses-Speeds- Alteration of course-Duty of vessel hearing signals forward of her beam of one long blast and two long blasts- Look-out

RUBY STEAMSHIP CORPORATION LTD., v. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 263

Insurance (marine) - Brokers - Cancellation of policies- Sale of ship- Insurance of vendors' and purchasers' (plaintiffs') interests to be effected by W corporation (holding a part interest)- Premiums payable by plaintiffs - Policies effected by New York insurance brokers through English brokers with defendant underwriters- Premiums unpaid by plaintiffs- Cancellation by New York brokers- Later policies effected for less cover- Recovery under later policies- Right of brokers to cancel earlier policies- American or English law- Whether plaintiffs ratified cancellation of the earlier policies and were estopped from denying that they were cancelled with their authority

PROVINCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. MORGAN & FOXON.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 275

Insurance (motor)-Accident to lorry- Claim-Proposal form: "State (a) the purposes (in full) for which the vehicle will be used; and (b) the nature of the goods to be carried"-Answer (a) Delivery of coal; (b) Coal- Questions and answers as basis of contract -Accident while delivering coal- Evidence that prior to accident lorry had carried timber under contract - Whether breach of condition avoiding policy

FRESHWATER v. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 282

Practice - Insurance (motor) - Stay of action - Third party claim by plaintiff against assured - Bankruptcy of assured - Rights of plaintiff against insurers - Arbitration clause in policy - Award as a condition precedent - Claim by insurers that action be stayed - Denial of liability - Alleged untrue statements in proposal form-Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act, 1930 -Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 36 (1) (b), (4), (5)

THE "HALIOTIS."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 288

Collision between motor vessels Chisone and Haliotis off Beachy Head in dense fog-Dispute as to speeds and signals -Duty of vessels in fog-Right to sound "lying stopped" signals- Helm action by Haliotis-Collision Regulations, Art. 16 - Finding of Admiralty Court that Haliotis was alone to blame

THE "PORTIA."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 295

Collision between steamships Oakford and Portia in Woolwich Reach, River Thames - Oakford emerging from Prince Regent's Dock and turning down river; Portia bound up

THE "ROSYTH."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 298

Negligent navigation-Collision between plaintiffs' steamer Polybius and pierhead of Greenland Dock, River Thames -Polybius bound up, making for Greenland Dock; steamer Rosyth bound down-Allegation that Polybius was embarrassed by sharp starboard helm action taken by the Rosyth across the bows of the Polybius

GARNETT & SON, LTD. v. LEEDS, GOOLE & HULL TRANSPORT COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 305

Ship- Damage to plaintiffs' cargo through sinking of defendants' keel in canal- Whether sinking due to unseaworthiness of keel or to collision with bridge wall- Keel 50 years old- Evidence of contact with wall

EASTER v. PEEK.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 312

Sale of yacht- Innocent misrepresentation - Purchase of yacht by defendant from plaintiff- Allegation by defendant that he was induced to enter into the contract of sale by reason of representation made by plaintiff that the yacht was in a fit condition to proceed immediately to the Mediterranean; that the yacht was in fact affected with rot; and that the contract was therefore avoided - Claim by plaintiff for balance of price

IN RE GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 315

Insurance company- Motor insurance- Statutory deposit- Value of investments - Summons claiming payment out, investments having appreciated, of excess value of deposit- Procedure: Petition or summons - Summons amended so that sum to be paid out was less than sum to be paid in- Change of investment - Assurance Companies Act, 1909, Sects. 2, 3- Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 37- R.S.C., Order 55, r. 2 (8) Insurance company- Motor insurance- Statutory deposit in accordance with Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as amended by Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 42- Whether primarily applicable to satisfaction of third party claimants- Decision in In re South-East Lancashire Insurance Company, 44 Ll.L.Rep. 156, questioned.

H.M.S. "GLORIOUS."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 321

Collision between steamship Florida and H.M. aircraft carrier Glorious in Mediterranean during thick fog - Florida bound from Buenos Aires to Genoa; Glorious engaged in aircraft exercises-Respective duties-Collision Regulations, Art. 16: "A steam vessel hearing, apparently forward of her beam, the fog signal of a vessel the position of which is not ascertained, shall, so far as the circumstances of the case admit, stop her engines, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over"-Both vessels held to blame by Bateson, J., for excessive speed and for failure to stop; Florida also for helm action- Apportionment of blame: Florida, two - thirds; Glorious, one - third - Appeal by Florida on question of apportionment - Responsibility of Court of Appeal

H.M.S. "RAINBOW."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 330

Collision between paddle steamer Premier and H.M. submarine Rainbow at entrance to north ship channel, Portland Harbour-Premier about to enter harbour; Rainbow making her way out - Portland Dockyard Regulations - "5. When any vessel or vessels are about to enter from seaward any of the channels between the breakwaters, no vessel proceeding outward by the same channel shall enter the said channel until the before-mentioned vessel or vessels shall have passed in"-Construction-Look-out

A/S. D/S. ONARHEIM v. WRIGHT & CO. (NEWCASTLE & HULL), LTD., AND THE WHITE OAK COAL COMPANY.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 340

Interpleader- Freight fund- Ship owned by Norwegian company - Equitable assignments of freight to necessaries men by way of security- Assignments effected in Norway- Winding-up of company - Issue between necessaries men and liquidator - English or Norwegian law

REDERI AKTIEBOLAGET BYLGIA v. ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 344

Charter-party- Insurance of vessel- Extra cost owing to delay - "Charterers undertake to load steamer and clear the cargo and present the master with bills of lading for signature so early as to enable the pilot to take the steamer out not later than Oct. 31, failing which charterers are to pay the actual amount paid by owners to underwriters for extra insurance on present policies, excepting in cases of delay attributable to owners or steamer."- Delays on voyage to loading port due (1) to defects in steam pipe affecting working of windlass; (2) to defects in steering gear; (3) to collision with another vessel; (4) to bad weather

CHANDLER v. POLAND AND OTHERS.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 349

Insurance (Burglary)- Claim- Settlement between assured's representative and assessors acting on underwriters' behalf- Whether claim settled "subject to approval of underwriters"

THE "AGILITY."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 353

Negligent navigation-Collision between steamship and swing bridge at Selby, River Ouse-Claim by shipowners for damage to vessel, it being alleged that bridge was improperly swung-Counterclaim by bridge-owners (1) against pilot and master of vessel for damage to bridge; (2) against shipowners for loss of tolls, &c.-Selby Bridge Act, 1791-Shipowners shall not "be answerable or liable to make satisfaction or to be sued for any damage or injury which shall be done to the said bridge . . ."-Judgment for bridge-owners on claim and counterclaim-Appeal by shipowners on question of loss of tolls

RUDD v. ELDER DEMPSTER & CO., LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 356

Workmen's compensation - Breach of statutory regulations-Injury to dock labourer engaged in loading vessel- Common law claim against shipowners -Breaking of winch rope-Use of rope as brake-System of loading in force for 30 years without serious accident- Jury questions: (1) Was it part of the system of loading sanctioned by the shipowners that the winch should continue to run while the load was being held suspended as in this case? Yes; (2) Was the rope of suitable quality and free from patent defect when used to lower the last load? If "No," did such defect contribute to the breaking of the rope? Not suitable. Not free from defect. Yes; (3) Was the rope loaded beyond its safe working load? Yes-Award: £3000-Whether evidence to support findings-"Personal negligence or wilful act" of shipowners-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sect. 29, 32-Docks Regulations, 1925, Nos. 20, 30, 44

THE "SOUTHSEA."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 373

Salvage-Services rendered by paddle steamship Emperor of India and H.M. tug Resolve to paddle steamship Southsea disabled off Brook Point, Isle of Wight-Southsea with anchor down and another available - Whether in position of acute danger-Towage by Emperor of India for about three hours, Southsea then being towed to safety by Resolve-Dispute as to danger of Southsea when Resolve took over towage-Large number of passengers on board both Emperor of India and Southsea as an element to be considered in estimating the value of the services-Damage sustained by Emperor of India

THE "WEST WALES."

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 381

Collision - Damages - Reference - Loss of use of warship - Occupation of Admiralty dock and use of crane during repairs- Objection by Admiralty to assessment of damages by Registrar- Report sent back- Intimation to Registrar that the use of the dock and crane must necessarily have involved expense; that the Admiralty in respect of loss of use of their warship were entitled to be compensated on the basis of actual out-of-pocket expenditure, depreciation and interest on capital value; and that it was not apparent from his report that he had applied those principles- Estimation of loss.

MARSHALL, KNOTT & BARKER, LTD. v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 384

Sale of goods (timber, c.i.f.)- Rejection- Timber to be delivered to buyers' wharf - Vessel chartered by sellers too large to approach wharf- Impossibility of performance of bill of lading contract - Rejection of documents by buyers- Measure of damages- Whether buyers should have accepted in mitigation suggested alternative method of delivery

WHITE SEA TIMBER TRUST, LTD. v. W. W. NORTH, LTD.

(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 390

Sale of goods- Rejection (timber, c.i.f.)- Goods to be shipped under deck- Tender of documents providing for shipment of part of parcel on deck- Right of buyers to reject whole parcel - "The buyers shall not reject the goods herein specified but shall accept or pay for them in terms of contract against shipping documents" - Meaning of "herein specified"

Lloyd's Law Reports