i-law.com

THE "ECLIPSE" AND THE "ROBIE."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Negligent navigation-Contributory negligence -Collision between tug Krooman and barge Eclipse (in tow of tug Robie) at entrance to Alexandra Dock, Hull-Robie about to tow barges from lock-Krooman negligently manoeuvred into close proximity to Robie when Robie was moving slowly ahead - Robie then stopped in response to signals from her tows - Subsequent starting ahead by Robie, collision following between Krooman and Eclipse's anchor hanging over bows

THOMSON v. MICKS, LAMBERT & CO.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 5

General average-Unseaworthiness-Claim by shipowner against cargo-owners for general average contribution- Hatches stove in during heavy weather -Vessel puts into port of refuge, cargo being unloaded, reconditioned and reloaded - Allegation by cargo-owners that vessel was unseaworthy in that her hatch covers were too thin and worn; that No. 6 'tween deck was inefficient for the carriage of cargo (the ventilator coaming was not high enough and there were no scuppers); and that water had penetrated through the skin of the ship (cracked plate or weeping rivets) - Inference to be drawn from fact that vessel had been several times surveyed by Lloyd's Register and retained her class-Evidence of weather encountered -Basis of contribution - Bill of lading providing for general average to be settled according to York-Antwerp Rules - Purchase by defendants of part cargo from shippers -Defendants given delivery order entitling them to delivery "subject to the conditions and exceptions of the bill of lading . . ." - Delivery under order refused by shipowner until defendants signed Lloyd's average bond agreeing "that they will pay to the [shipowner] the proper and respective proportion of any salvage and/or general average and/or particular and/or other charges which may be chargeable upon their respective consignments . . . and . . . to furnish to the [shipowner] a correct account and particulars of the value of the goods delivered to them respectively in order that any such salvage and/or general average and/or particular and/or other charges may be ascertained and adjusted in the usual manner"- Thomson v. Micks, Lambert & Co. K.B. 6 Whether contribution based on common law or on York-Antwerp Rules - Shipowner's contention that apart from the bond the cargo-owners were impliedly liable to contribute under the York-Antwerp Rules by reason of the presentation of the delivery order

CROSSE & BLACKWELL (MANUFACTURING COMPANY), LTD. v. WARWICK AGENCIES.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 25

Sale of goods (c.i.f.)-Breach-Quality (greengage pulp)-Rejection by buyers -Allegation that pulp was not up to contract quality at time of shipment- Clean bill of lading-No mention of condition in landing account

OHLSON STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. RONAASEN & SON.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 26

Charter-party - Loading and discharging of firewood-"The cargo to be loaded and discharged in tiers of lengths as customary in the firewood trade" - Evidence that firewood was not loaded in tiers of lengths-Whether the obligation on the shipowners was only to sort into lengths as far as was reasonably practicable - Meaning of "as customary"-Claim by charterers to cost of extra labour to discharge and to dispatch money which they alleged they were prevented from earning

WILLIAMS AND OTHERS v. NEVILLS DOCK & RAILWAY COMPANY, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 30

Ship-Discharge of scrap from sailing vessel -Rate to be paid to dock labourers- Agreed schedule of prices (Llanelly)- Labourers paid at rate for steamship discharge - Appeal against judgment dismissing claim for balance

KELLEY v. SHAMROCK SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 33

Negligence - Personal injuries sustained by pilot disembarking overside from ship he had piloted - Foot caught in steering chain on outside ledge - Questions for jury: "(1) Were the defendants negligent, apart altogether from the negligence of their servants? Yes. (2) Were the defendants negligent through their servants? Yes"-Finding of learned Judge that the accident was largely due to the personal negligence of the shipowners themselves, in that the chain constituted an unguarded trap against which the pilot had not been warned, and that therefore the pilot was entitled to recover Workmen's compensation-"Workman"- Pilot's engagement with defendants lasting less than a day-Total remuneration for a year exceeding £350- Whether excepted from definition "workman"-Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sect. 3

WATERS, LTD. v. GENERAL WHARFAGE & SUPPLY COMPANY, LTD. (THE "CHAMPION.")

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 40

Practice - Mayor's and City of London Court - Admiralty jurisdiction - Collision between plaintiffs' dumb barge James (in tow) and defendants' tug Champion in River Thames-Application by defendants to set aside proceedings - Dumb barge in tow - Whether a "ship"-Admiralty Court Act, 1861, Sect. 2 - County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act, 1868, Sect. 3 (3)-County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Amendment Act, 1869, Sect. 4

THE "TORGEIR I."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 46

Bill of lading-Freight-Claim by shipowners (plaintiffs) against bill of lading holders (defendants) for balance of freight-Purchase of felspar by defendants from J-Charter by J of plaintiffs' motor vessel-Freight unpaid by charterers-Amount outstanding from defendants to charterers-Defendants' allegation that they agreed with plaintiffs that if defendants paid to plaintiffs the amount outstanding from defendants to charterers, plaintiffs would look to charterers for the balance -Consideration

PUSHMAN BROTHERS, INC. v. BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 50

Bill of lading-Damage to cargo (carpets) by sea water-Hold flooded-Flooding valve turned on by unknown person - Valve protected by locked steel cover- Shipowners' plea that they were protected by bill of lading exceptions - "Barratry . . . perils, dangers and accidents of the sea . . . unseaworthiness, unfitness, or defect of any kind in hull, machinery, tackle, equipment, engines or appurtenances at the commencement or any stage of the voyage (provided reasonable means have been taken by the [shipowners] at the port of shipment to prevent same): any act, neglect or default whatsoever of pilot, master, officers, mariners, engineers, stevedores or other servants or agents whatsoever of the [shipowners]" - Allegation by cargo-owners that vessel was unseaworthy (inadequate protection of the flooding valve) and that reasonable steps had not been taken to prevent such unseaworthiness

"PATAGONIER" (OWNERS) v. SPEAR & THORPE.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 59

Bill of lading - Claim by shipowners for balance of freight due in respect of consignment of wheat - Counterclaim by cargo-owners for short delivery- "Said to be . . ."-"Shipper's weight" - "Weight, measure, quantity unknown" -Incorporation of Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1910 - Evidence of amount shipped and quantity delivered-Whether shippers made "demand" for bill of lading within Sect. 9 of the Canadian Act

CUBITT AND TERRY v. GOWER.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 65

Negligence - Ground collision between aeroplanes - Defendant's aeroplane taking off-Defendant's allegation that plaintiffs' aeroplane was negligently moved into course of defendant's, aeroplane -Air Navigation Act, 1920, Sect. 9-Onus of proof

GRAY v. BLACKMORE.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 69

Motor insurance-Third party risks- Claim by garage proprietor to be indemnified under his Class A policy -"Private purposes"-"The term 'private purposes' means social, domestic and pleasure purposes and use by the assured in person in connection with his business or profession. The term 'private purposes' does not include . . . any purposes in connection with the motor trade"-Breakdown of friend's car-Journey to scene in insured car to repair or otherwise deal with breakdown-Towage (without reward) of friend's car to more suitable spot in adjacent street-Third party injured by tripping over tow rope-Action brought against assured -Claim for declaration that assured was entitled to be indemnified under policy-Whether covered-Effect of Road Traffic Act upon limitation clause in policy-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 35, 36, 38

VOYAJOGLU v. EMBIRICOS.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 76

Principal and agent-Agreement-Management of defendant's steamers-Claim by plaintiff for services rendered- Defendant's contention that any agreement entered into was with limited company (of which plaintiff was managing director)-Plaintiff's allegation that defendant agreed to employ him at a specified rate of remuneration-Alternative claim on a quantum meruit

WILLIAMS & SONS, LTD. v. PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 81

River authority-Negligence-Moorings- Breaking adrift of plaintiffs' barges from P.L.A. moorings-Breaking of shackle-Salvage and damage claims against barges-Claim by plaintiffs that they were entitled to be indemnified by P.L.A.-Res ipsa loquitur- Onus of proof-Duty of P.L.A. towards persons using moorings-Licensees or invitees-Whether an absolute warranty of fitness of moorings

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

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 88

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

JEWSON & SONS, LTD. v. ARCOS, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 93

Sale of goods-Fraudulent misrepresentation -Purchase in June, 1930, of timber by plaintiffs from defendants - Reliance by plaintiffs on promise by defendants that they would not sell and on information that they had not sold to other buyers on more favourable terms than those to be set out in price list to be issued-Plaintiffs bound not to sell under a fixed minimum price until January, 1931-Discovery by plaintiffs after January, 1931, that defendants had previously contracted with H. & Co. to supply them with timber at a lower price than that provided for in plaintiffs' agreement-Caveat emptor - Defendants' duty to disclose - Measure of damages

THE "TREHERBERT."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 105

Collision between steamships Archon and Treherbert off Margate Sands-Archon sunk - Archon inward bound to London; Treherbert outward bound- Recognised practice for incoming vessel to pass well clear of the North-East Spit Buoy (where both incoming and outgoing vessels change their courses) giving room to outgoing vessels-Contention by Treherbert that narrow channel rule applied and that Archon did not observe that rule - Failure of Archon to follow practice- Contention by Archon that vessels were on crossing courses, with Treherbert the give-way vessel-Failure to give way-Whether excused by practice of vessels off that buoy-Duty of Archon under Collision Regulations- Collision Regulations, Arts. 19, 21, 25

THE "PURFLEET."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 115

Collision between steamship Nelly and barge Titus (in tow of tug Purfleet) in Gallions Reach, River Thames-Nelly bound up, turning in river to moor at Beckton Pier No. 2; Purfleet also bound up-Duty of vessel turning in rive-Look-out-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1926, No. 23

THE "SUCARSECO."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 121

General average-Contribution by cargo- Collision between carrying and non-carrying vessels-Both to blame- General average expenses incurred by carrying vessel-Cargo carried under bill of lading incorporating Jason Clause-Contribution made by cargo- Right to recover from non-carrying vessel

THE "BATHORI."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 123

Prize-Capture and destruction of enemy vessel-Vessel sunk by British warship contrary to terms of safe conduct granted by Naval Department of France-Claim by owners, master and crew for compensation - Claimants domiciled in Fiume, now a free State- Status of Fiume at date of Treaty of Trianon (between England and Austria-Hungary)-Effect of treaty- Arts. 232, 233 - Treaty of Peace (Hungary) Act, 1921-Treaty of Peace (Hungary) Order, 1921

DUNN v. OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE CORPORATION, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 129

Motor insurance-Non-disclosure-Claim by plaintiff assured in respect of death of her husband by accident while driving plaintiff's car-Car given to plaintiff by husband-Insurance effected on plaintiff's behalf by husband as agent of defendant company-Proposal form signed by plaintiff in her maiden name -Evidence that had defendants known that plaintiff was a married woman they would have taken steps to ascertain who her husband was; and that her husband was in fact a bad risk- "Have you or your Driver during the past five years been convicted of any offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle?-No"-Whether question referred only to person in plaintiff's employ - Car driven by husband for business purposes both before and after insurance effected

AUSTRALIAN STEAMSHIP PROPRIETARY, LTD. v. JOHN LEWIS & SONS, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 132

Shipbuilding - Contract - Guaranteed draught and deadweight capacity- Breach-Claim by shipowners against shipbuilders for damages-Arbitration - Award that the shipbuilders were liable to shipowners for damages in respect of (1) excess draught (2) deficiency in deadweight capacity; that in estimating the probable loss resulting from (1) regard must be had to the probable cost of reducing such excess draught to the guaranteed draught for the estimated effective life of the vessel; that in estimating the probable loss resulting from (2) regard must be had to the probable loss of net freight for the estimated life of the vessel; and that in both cases there must be considered such contingencies as the loss of the vessel, or her sale or lack of employment - Submission by shipbuilders of evidence of vessel's actual working subsequent to delivery -Admissibility

MODIANO BROS. & SONS v. BAILEY & SONS, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 134

Sale of goods (c.i.f.) - Freight - Rate of exchange-London Corn Trade Association Contract, No. 26 (Chilean barley) - "Freight payable on discharge, less advances for disbursements at port of loading"-Payment to be made by buyers against documents - Barley shipped per Norwegian steamship John Bakke under bill of lading dated Mar. 31, 1933, providing: "Freight and charges . . . payable at destination . . . Freight collect on basis of pound sterling equals 4.86 U.S. gold dols., shipowners to have option of collecting U.S. dollars or their own country's currency at ruling rate of exchange for U.S. gold dollars"- Apr. 19: United States off gold standard -May 10: Documents taken up by buyers-Credit given by sellers in provisional invoice for estimated freight on basis of £=4.86 U.S. gold dols. - Refusal by shipowners to release barley except upon payment of freight in Belgian francs calculated upon par rate of exchange-Payment under protest - Claim by buyers to recover difference from sellers-Whether buyers agents for sellers for payment of freight - Bills of Lading Act, 1855

ANDREA SANGUINETI FU DAVIDE v. UGLEEXPORT.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 142

Charter-party-Ice clause-Provision of icebreakers by charterers - Delay in reaching loading port (Mariupol) - Claim by shipowners for demurrage and/or detention-Arbitration-Award -"(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

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

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 151

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 - 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 bare-owners towards stevedores-Invitees or trespassers - Authority of barge crew - Docks Regulations, 1925, Regulations 33 (a) (b), 34 (b)

AKTIES. STEAM v. ARCOS, LTD. AKTIES. BRUUSGAARD v. SAME.*

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 159

Charter-party-Dead freight-"Full and complete cargo of mill sawn red and/or white firwood deals and/or battens and/or boards"-Shipowners' contention that less than a full cargo was loaded owing to accumulation upon cargo of ice and snow-Alleged shortage of 80 standards-Onus of proof-No complaint in contemporary documents of the condition of the cargo tendered -Evidence that intake depended upon type of timber loaded

"PORTOFINO" (OWNERS) v. BERLIN DERUNAPTHA.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 165

Charter-party-Demurrage-Vessel to load lubricating oil and/or fuel oil and/or mazout and/or gas oil and/or solar oil -Notice of readiness given-Inspection of vessel by charterers' agents - Captain informed by charterers that vessel was to load kerosene and that vessel was unfit for carriage of kerosene -Refusal by captain to load kerosene - Repairs effected by captain - Subsequent agreement by charterers to load heavy oil provided captain renounced claims for demurrage and paid inspection expenses, &c. -Consideration - Finding of umpire that vessel was seaworthy when notice of readiness was given; that the charterers were not entitled to load kerosene under the charter-party; that the charterers were not entitled to claim that the vessel should be fit for the carriage of kerosene; that the defects complained of by the charterers were matters of small moment and did not in any way affect the fitness of the vessel to load; and that the document signed by the captain in which he renounced demurrage claims, &c., was obtained under circumstances which amounted to compulsion, and that the charterers were at the time in default under the charter-party and there was no consideration for any promise made by the captain in that document

RICHARDSON v. ROYLANCE.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 173

Insurance - Cash in transit policy - "£20,000 on cash and/or notes from time of drawing from bank at Tooting and whilst in transit to and whilst at assured's house situate 34, Mount Ephraim Road, Streatham, S.W., overnight in locked drawer or cupboard and thence in transit to various places of disbursement in and around London, including Staines, and whilst there until paid out. . . . No claim shall attach to this policy in respect of . . . any loss occurring when the premises are closed unless the cash or notes are in a locked safe or strong room. (This clause will not apply at 34, Mount Ephraim Road, Streatham, S.W. 16)" - Cash drawn on Tooting bank and paid out by Winchester branch-Stolen or lost from padlocked wooden box in builder's shed at Winchester-"In and around London"

CAMERON LUMBER CO., LTD. v. MOUNT ROYAL ASSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 175

Fire insurance-Use and occupation- Fixed charges and expenses-Lumber manufacture-Destruction of premises -Cover of "such fixed charges and expenses as must necessarily continue during a total or partial suspension of business to the extent only that such fixed charges and expenses would have been earned had no fire occurred" - Liability "to be limited to the actual loss sustained, not exceeding 1/300th of the amount of the policy for each business day of such suspension . . . due consideration . . . being given to the experience of the business before the fire and the probable experience thereafter"-Assessment of loss by jury-Valuation of inventories -Appeal by insurance company against jury's finding

MOORE v. CUNARD STEAM SHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 182

Workmen's compensation-Total or partial incapacity-Injury to dock labourer- Compensation paid on ground of total incapacity - Compensation subsequently reduced-Application by workman to County Court Judge-Finding of Judge that applicant had totally recovered - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sect. 9

THE "ELPENOR."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 183

Salvage-Services rendered by motor vessel. Agamemnon to steamship Elpenor off coast of Japan-Elpenor broken down - Vessel taken in tow to Hakodate - Each vessel of about 7500 tons gross- No danger from currents; possible serious danger from weather; a real apprehension of weather to come

GALLE GOWNS, LTD. v. LICENSES & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 186

Fire insurance - Loss - Claim - Misrepresentations in proposal form- Identity of proposer (chairman of plaintiff company) trading under name of Hershorn-Answer to question concerning insurance record: "See previous records Hershorn"-Non-disclosure of previous trading under other names-Evidence of the financial instability of many of his previous concerns-Alleged fraudulent exaggeration in making present claim - Questions for jury: "(1) Were the plaintiffs guilty of fraudulent exaggeration in making their claim?- No. (2) Did the proposal put forward by the [plaintiffs] misrepresent or conceal any fact which it was material that the defendants should knot?-Yes"- Claim dismissed.

IN RE BYRON STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. (APPLICATION OF M. H. ALI).

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 193

Workmen's compensation-Liquidation of steamship company-Claim by seaman -Company a member of club-Compensation payments made by club - Calls not paid by company - Further compensation payments refused by club-Claim by seaman in liquidation of company that he was entitled to rank as preferential creditor - Proof rejected by liquidator - Contention that seaman's claim was against club - Rules of club providing that "in the case of the bankruptcy or suspension of payment of any member, or of his refusal or neglect to pay any contribution due from him to [the club] the steamer or steamers of such member entered in the books of [the club] shall cease to be protected both in respect of outstanding and future claims immediately after his being adjudicated bankrupt, suspending payment, or after such refusal or neglect as aforesaid . . ." - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sect. 7-Companies Act, 1929, Sect. 264 (1) (d)

SUTHERLAND v. ADMINISTRATOR OF GERMAN PROPERTY.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 197

Conflict of laws-Marine insurance-Subrogation - Payment of claim by insurers (German nationals in United States of America) in respect of loss of cargo on board British steamship - Sum recovered in action brought in England by assured (for benefit of insurers) against shipowners-Treaty of Peace Order, 1919, Art. 1 (xvi) - Similar legislation in United States- Vesting of insurers' property - Claim by Alien Property Custodian for the United States against the Administrator of German Property in England to recover insurers' portion of sum recovered -Bills of lading and subrogation letters in custody of Alien Property Custodian-Situs of chose in action

THE "STENTOR."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 202

Collision between steamship Guildford Castle and motor vessel Stentor in River Elbe - Guildford Castle bound down; Stentor bound up - Guildford Castle emerging from fog bank-Warning blast sounded-Vessels suddenly in view of each other, with Stentor on starboard bow of Guildford Castle - Sharp port wheel action by Guildford Castle, taking her to wrong side of channel - Speeds

WHITE & SON (HULL), LTD. v. "HOBSONS BAY" (OWNERS).

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 207

Bill of lading-Damage to refrigerated cargo (apples)-Shipment in good order and condition-Delivery in overripe condition - Whether damage due to maintenance of improper temperatures or to inherent vice ("low temperature internal breakdown")-Onus of proof-Fitness of refrigerated hold for carriage of apples - Temperatures at which apples should be carried - Evidence of experts-Inference to be drawn from shipowners' instructions to their officers relating to the carriage of fruit-Australian Sea Carriage of Goods Act, 1924, Schedule, Arts. III (1) (2), IV (2) (m) (q)

THE "LUSO."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 214

Collision between Latvian steamship Margarete and Portuguese steamship Luso in North Sea during fog - Margarete southward, Luso northward, bound-Duty under Art. 16 - Signals heard forward of beam - Margarete admittedly 50 per cent. to blame

GARRELS AND OTHERS v. S. BEHR & MATHEW, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 219

General average-Claim by owners of wood oil against owners of other cargo on board - Damage to wood oil by sea water-Oil carried in forepeak tank- Heavy weather causing entry of sea water into compartments above forepeak tank-Sea water pumped out -Followed by fire in same compartments -Flooding to extinguish fire- Sea water again pumped out - Forepeak tank found to contain emulsion of wood oil and sea water - Whether entry of sea water into tank due to heavy weather or to fire

AKTIES. STEAM v. ARCOS, LTD. AKTIES. BRUUSGAARD v. SAME.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 225

Charter-party-Ice clause-Claim by shipowners for damage sustained by ship 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- Whether escort of icebreakers sufficient in prevailing conditions

THE "WINDERMERE."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 238

Salvage - Services rendered by pilot to steamship Windermere in Tees Bay - Vessel bound to Middlesbrough found to be making water-Down by the head -No imminent danger-Taken by pilot to wharf on River Tees-Short service

THE "SENTRY."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 243

Collision between steam barge Bounty and steamship Sentry in Manchester Ship Canal-Bounty bound up; Sentry bound down - Contact between Bounty's bow and Sentry's stern and propeller - Whether either vessel sheered

THE "LESTRIS."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 248

Collision between steamships City of Dublin and Lestris in River Scheldt- City of Dublin anchored in Austruweel Roads, awaiting entry into Royers Sluis-Lestris bound up-City of Dublin moved to make way for steamer Westerland leaving quay - City of Dublin manoeuvred across Lestris's path

STAFFORDSHIRE & WORCESTERSHIRE CANAL COMPANY v. SEVERN COMMISSIONERS AND OTHERS.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 256

Mortgage - Priorities - Mortgages of certain revenue receipts by Severn Commissioners - Ranking between mortgagees - Mortgages created under Severn Navigation Acts, 1842, 1844, 1869 and 1890-Whether charge effected by pre-1890 mortgages confined to tolls -Items in dispute: (1) Gloucester lock tolls created under Sect. 16 of the Act of 1890; (2) Rents of lands; (3) Fees receivable for licensing pleasure boats under Sect. 8 of the Severn Navigation Act, 1920; (4) Certain annual payments by electricity undertakings; and (5) Sums receivable under wayleave agreements - Whether receipts pledged to the holders of the mortgages created under the Acts of 1842 and 1844 and under the Act of 1890, or to one and not the other of those classes of mortgagees

THE "ZIGURDS."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 267

Ship - Freight - Claims against freight fund - Ranking between equitable mortgagee and ship's agents, claiming as equitable assignees of freight, alleging notice to consignees-Disbursements made by ship's agents on behalf of ship-Document signed by master, with authority of managing owner: "Please pay the freight of my vessel . . . to my agents"-Notice given by agents to consignees: "We beg to give you notice that we hold captain's authority to collect the freight per this steamer's cargo, against which we have made payments" - Effect of notice - Whether sufficient to oust prior mortgagee who had failed to give notice

MARTIN v. BANNISTER.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 270

Motor insurance-Practice-Stay of action for personal injuries brought by plaintiff against defendant - Alleged compromise of claim-Defendant insured with P Company-Compromise of plaintiff's claim against defendant effected by C acting on behalf of plaintiff-Authority of C-Following receipt signed by plaintiff: "Received from [defendant] per the [P Company] the sum of £100 in full satisfaction and discharge of all claims made or to be made in respect to injuries and/or damage or injurious results accrued or likely to accrue in consequence of an accident which happened to me on the 25th day of September, 1932"-Payment of 35 guineas (increased on demand by C from 30 guineas) costs to C-Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, Sect. 41

THE "TREHERBERT."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 274

Collision between steamships Archon and Treherbert off Margate Sands-Archon sunk - Archon inward bound to London; Treherbert outward bound - Recognised practice for incoming vessel to pass well clear of the North-East Spit Buoy (where both incoming and outgoing vessels change their courses) giving room to outgoing vessels - Failure of Archon to follow practice- Contention by Treherbert that narrow channel rule applied and that Archon did not observe that rule-Contention by Archon that vessels were on crossing courses, with Treherbert the give-way vessel-Failure to give way-Whether excused by practice-Collision Regulations, Arts. 19, 21, 22, 23, 25-Whether Archon took action too late under Art. 21 (n)

THE "APIKIA."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 283

Salvage - Services rendered by tug Torfrida to steamer Apikia in Barry Roads-Apikia anchored preparatory to entering Barry Docks-Vessel found to be dragging shorewards - Vessel towed clear from a position about a quarter of a mile from the shore-Bad weather

THE "FERRANTI" AND THE "BORDER FIRTH."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 286

Collision between barges (in tow of tug Mincing Lane) and steamship Ferranti in Gallions Reach, River Thames- Mincing Lane bound up; Ferranti bound down-Allegation by Ferranti that collision was due to negligent navigation of steamship Border Firth, which was overtaking the tug and tow and collided with the Ferranti, deflecting her course into the tug and tow-Congestion on northern side- Flood tide - Dispute as to place of collision-Look - out-Speeds-Thames By-laws, 1914-1926, Rules 33, 36

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

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 297

Bill of lading - Deviation - General average - Claim by plaintiff cargo-owners to be released from obligation undertaken by them by way of average bond - Sale of sugar to plaintiffs - Charter by sellers of defendants' vessel Tregenna-Vessel to "proceed to Cuba and there load . . . at one or two safe ports on the south side and at one safe port on the south side of San Domingo as ordered and/or at customary outside anchorage at charterers' option. . . ." -Incorporation in bill of lading of charter-party terms and conditions - Vessel instructed by ship's agents in accordance with sellers' request to proceed to Casilda as vessel's first loading port - Following sellers' further request, night letter telegram sent by ship's agents ordering captain to proceed to Santiago and to San Pedro (San Domingo)-No telegraph beyond Trinidad (Cuba)-Ship's agents informed by cable company that message would be mailed from Trinidad to Casilda-Message not delivered-Vessel proceeds to Santiago from Casilda in accordance with sellers' agents' instructions -Failure to call at San Pedro- Vessel recalled to San Pedro upon discovery of mistake-Grounding of vessel on leaving San Pedro, general average expenses being incurred by shipowners -Claim by plaintiffs that they were not liable to contribute as the vessel had deviated - Alleged negligence of shipowners in transmitting orders to captain

WORKINGTON HARBOUR & DOCK BOARD v. TRADE INDEMNITY COMPANY, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 305

Contract - Guarantee - Construction of works by K & R on plaintiffs' dock premises at Workington-Bond entered into between plaintiffs and defendants, defendants to secure performance of K & R's contract - Failure of K & R to complete contract owing to amount of water in soil to be excavated -Work completed by plaintiffs-Claim under bond-Indebtedness of K & R to plaintiffs denoted by certificate issued by plaintiff's engineers-Whether certificate binding on defendants-Plaintiffs' duty of disclosure under bond- Whether contract bond one of guarantee or of insurance

THE "SEGUNDO."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 317

Collision between steamship Turakina and motor vessel Segundo in River Tyne- Subsequent collision between Turakina and steamship Chilton, lying on northern side of river - Turakina bound up, attended by three tugs - Segundo, attended by two tugs, making her way down river, having just emerged from Tyne dock-Turakina's propeller stripped just before collision -Effect of lost propeller-River Tyne By-laws, Rule 19

BUTCHER, WETHERLY & CO., LTD. v. NORMAN.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 324

Practice - New Procedure List - Claim under policy of fire, burglary and theft insurance - Application by defendant to Judge in charge of New Procedure List to adjourn summons for directions to enable application for transfer to Commercial List-Application refused on ground that plaintiff alone had right to settle tribunal - Appeal by defendant - New Procedure Rules - R.S.C., Order 38 A, r. 16: "Nothing in this order shall affect the practice as regards the trial of causes in the Commercial List or the transfer of causes to or from the Commercial List"

POOL SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD. v. NORTHERN MARITIME INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 331

General average - York-Antwerp Rules, 1924, Rules A, E and V - Plaintiffs' vessel found to be dragging her anchors in Pozzuoli Bay in consequence of sudden bad weather-Risk of dragging ashore - Vessel intentionally allowed to drift broadside on to pierhead - Damage to vessel and pier - Liability of defendants as insurers of cargo to contribute in general average - Whether a general average act

THE "SELVISTAN."

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 337

JENKINS v. DEANE.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 342

Motor insurance - Third party - Ford lorry towing second lorry which had broken down - Man killed by second lorry getting out of control owing to breakage of defective towing chain- Award of damages in action brought by plaintiff dependant against W & J (owners of both lorries) - Judgment not satisfied-Ford lorry insured by W & J with defendants-Claim by plaintiff as assignee of the policy against defendants-Alleged breach of conditions by assured - Denial of liability by defendants on grounds (1) that Ford lorry was carrying an excess load; (2) that the second lorry constituted a trailer; (3) that the Ford lorry was in an unsafe condition; (4) that no notice had been given of a change of partners in W & J; and (5) that as the second lorry was covered by other insurers the defendants were only liable to contribute rateably - Evidence of constitution of W & J - Construction of policy

INSPECTOR OF TAXES v. DOVER HARBOUR BOARD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 348

Revenue-Income tax-Revenue or capital expenditure - Harbour authorities - Expenditure incurred in removing sunken vessel and blockships-Appeal by Crown against finding of Tax Commissioners upholding harbour board's contention that the work "was of a nature similar to ordinary dredging or the removal of wrecks or other obstructions which might at any time occur in the harbour, and that the expenditure thereon was money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the respondents' trade or business and was not capital employed in the business" - Income Tax Act, 1918, Schedule D, Cases I and II

BRITISH STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION v. CHAPMAN & SON.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 351

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

IN RE NORTH & SOUTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.

(1933) 47 Ll.L.Rep. 356

Company-Winding-up-Motor insurance company - Insolvency - Petition for winding-up presented by Board of Trade under Assurance Companies (Winding up) Act, 1933-Adjournment to enable company to enter into negotiations to cover its liabilities - Request for further adjournment

Lloyd's Law Reports