i-law.com

HOLTS MOTORS, LTD. v. SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Insurance (motor car)-Action for declaration that certain policies were valid and binding contracts of insurance -Defences (1) that answers in proposal form were untrue; (2) that there was non-disclosure-Car bought on hire purchase system-Joint insurance by owners and hirers-Risk refused by B insurance company; accepted by L insurance company- Expiry-Insurance with defendants- "Has any company or underwriter declined to insure . . . any of your vehicles?"-Held that "your vehicles" included the vehicle under control of plaintiffs under the hire purchase agreement; that a declining to insure by the B company to the owners under the hire purchase agreement came within the ambit of the question, even though the hirers were unaware of that declining; that "declined" should not be construed to mean "declined to the person signing the proposal form"; that an intimation given by the L company before the expiration of their policy that they did not invite renewal was a declining of the risk, in any case that it was a matter which should have been disclosed -Judgment entered for defendants -Appeal dismissed.

JOHN MURRAY v. ELLERMAN LINES, LTD. (OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP "CROXTETH HALL"); JOSEPH COMERFORD v. WHITE STAR LINE (OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP "CELTIC").

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 6

Seamen - Wreck-Wages - Unemployment -Services terminated by wreck short time before completion of voyage under articles-Evidence of probable employment on vessel on next voyage-Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act, 1925, Sect. 1 (1), (2) -Construction-Right of seamen to voyages-Held (Slesser, L.J., dissenting) that, upon the facts, the seamen had shown a prima facie right under the Act which was not affected by the fact that the termination of the seamen's services under their articles was imminent; and that the onus of showing that the unemployment was not due to the wreck or that suitable employment was obtainable had not been discharged by the shipowners-Judgment entered for seamen for two months' wages from date of wreck, less any amounts received during that period under the Government unemployment scheme.

THE "TENERIFFE."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 14

Collision between sailing barge Reliance and lighter Teneriffe (in tow of tug Agnes) in Limehouse Reach, River Thames-Reliance (with no sails set) drifting up river on tide-Agnes proceeding down-Sudden letting go of anchor by Reliance-Bad look-out- Reliance found alone to blame.

THE "RES NOVA."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 16

Collision between barge Emu (in tow of tug Partnership) and motor vessel Res Nova in Lower Pool, River Thames, in broad daylight-Partnership proceeding up; Res Nova down- Action taken by Partnership to facilitate manoeuvres of craft ahead-Partnership's tow swung across fairway- Held, that the Partnership was navigated having "due regard to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances"; that she was right in going astern; and that the Res Nova was to blame in failing to hold back-Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1926, Rules 33, 41 -Proof of damage sustained by Emu.

THE BARGE "No. 484."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 20

Salvage-Services rendered by tug Hull to patent tipping barge No. 484 in River Mersey-Barge adrift-Squally wind and strong tide-Probability of damage to barge-Danger to traffic- Skilful services-£325 awarded on salved values of £2312.

THE "BRITON."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 21

Collision between sailing barges Marian and Briton in Gravesend Reach, River Thames-Both vessels proceeding down river-Dispute as to relative positions-Liability of Briton, being an iron barge, to broach-Whether Marian jibed at an improper time- Held, that the Briton was the overtaking vessel at the material time; that the Marian jibed at a proper time; and that the collision, which was contributed to by the fact that the Briton was an iron barge, was due to the negligence of the Briton in failing to keep clear of the Marian-Briton found alone to blame.

DIA v. COUNTY FIRE OFFICE, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 24

Insurance (burglary)-Loss-Claim-Dr. A employed as assistant by Dr. B (claimant)-Lease of flat by B for use of A-A's property stolen-Right to recover under B's policy covering "loss or damage caused by the said perils to clothing and personal goods of the insured's servants . . . whilst in the insured's private dwelling house aforesaid or any private dwelling . . . in which such servants are residing with the insured . . ." - Arbitration - Award-Finding of arbitrator that B never resided at flat but continued to reside elsewhere; that A was not a servant within the meaning of the policy; and that the loss was not a loss to clothing and personal goods of the insured's servant while in the insured's private dwelling-Award upheld.

THE "DIMITRIOS N. BOGIAZIDES."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 27

Salvage or towage-Services rendered by tug Brockenhurst to steamship Dimitrios N. Bogiazides in River Mersey- Anchors down-Wind strong but moderating -Disputed position of vessel as regards north wall-Request for tugs - Whether evidencing danger - Practice -Evidence-Pilot in charge of defendant vessel (foreign) approached by plaintiffs-Comments by Bateson, J.- Held, that the steamship was in no substantial danger and that the services rendered were no more than towage services.

THE "CATO."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 33

Salvage-Services rendered by steam trawler Loch Nevis to steamship Cato in Bristol Channel-Rudder disabled- Very heavy weather-Towage by Loch Nevis and attendance upon Cato (occupying four days and covering 95 miles) to Barry Roads-Cato then towed by tugs to Bristol-Very good service with considerable risk - Collision damage in making communications- Loch Nevis delayed to effect necessary repairs-Loss of fishing profits-£3000 (covering repairs at £1356, fees, &c., at £312, and bearing in mind average net profit of £11 10s. per day) awarded on salved values of £17,511.

SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK COMPANY v. W. F. CROOK (INSPECTOR OF TAXES).

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 38

Revenue-Income tax-Grant to dock company from Unemployment Grants Committee for dock extension work-Relief of unemployment - Annual grant equivalent to half the interest on approved expenditure met out of certain loans-Whether a capital or income receipt-Held, that the sum granted was an annual profit or gain within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts.

HOLMES v. PAYNE.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 41

Insurance (jewellery) - Loss (pearl necklace) -Claim under policy by defendant (assured)-Replacement agreement entered into between parties- Selection of articles of jewellery by assured-Subsequent discovery of necklace in assured's clothing before exhaustion of sum credited to assured under replacement agreement-Underwriter's claim (1) that there was no loss under the policy and that the replacement articles were supplied under a mistake of fact; (2) that the agreement to replace was induced by a representation which was in fact untrue, namely, that defendant had made a thorough search of her wardrobe; and (3) that it was an implied term of the agreement to replace that, if the insured object should be recovered before the replacement was completed, the replacement agreement must be void and the articles supplied under it must be returned-Held, that the assured had made a reasonably diligent search for the necklace; that the agreement to replace was not entered into by reason of the representations of the assured; that there was no distinction between payment and replacement (the fact that replacement had not been completely effected made no difference) and that the underwriters were not entitled to rescind or reopen the agreement-Held, further, that, as the necklace had disappeared and as a reasonable time had elapsed to allow of a diligent search and of recovery, there was a loss within the meaning of the policy, which was not affected by the subsequent discovery of the necklace -Judgment entered for defendant.

R. & J. BOW, LTD. v. HILL.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 46

Principal and agent-Claim by plaintiffs against defendant (1) for price of coal supplied by plaintiffs to trawlers; (2) for disbursements alleged to have been made on defendant's behalf-Supply of coal by plaintiffs under contract signed by defendant-Whether defendant was acting for an undisclosed principal-Construction of contract- Election-Held, as to (1) that the defendant contracted personally for the coal supplied to all trawlers under his management; that upon a true construction of the contract the question of election could not arise, in any event that there was no election; and that therefore the defendant was personally liable; as to (2) that in this case the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of showing that the order to make necessary disbursements was given by the defendant on his own behalf; and that therefore the defendant was not liable.

HILLS BROTHERS COMPANY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 49

General average - Contribution - Deterioration of cargo-Figs shipped in respondent's steamship Casey - Casualty to Casey necessitating permanent repairs at port of refuge-Figs discharged and transhipped into respondent's steamship Ossa-Whether deterioration a direct consequence of the prolongation of the voyage resulting from the general average act of the master of the Casey in putting into port of refuge and staying there for repairs - Held, that the immediate cause of the deterioration was the vice propre of the figs and that, even though that deterioration was probably aggravated by the delay, there was no right to claim contribution.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. GLEN LINE, LTD., AND THE LIVERPOOL & LONDON WAR RISKS INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 55

Ship-Insurance-Reinsurance by Government -Detention by German authorities during period of war - Abandonment to underwriters - Ship restored to and sold by underwriters after signing of peace treaty-Compensation subsequently paid to owners by German authorities in satisfaction of award of Mixed Arbitral Tribunal -Right of Government as reinsurers- Nature of payment-Held, that sum paid was compensation in respect of damage or injury inflicted upon the shipowners' property, rights or interests by the application of "exceptional war measures;" that it was paid to satisfy a claim which arose once for all at the time of the loss and was personal to the shipowners; and that therefore the payment did not enure for the benefit of the underwriters or the Government-Treaty of Versailles, Art. 297 (e) and Annex-Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 63, 79.

THE "CHATWOOD."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 63

Collision between steamships Bruges and Chatwood in River Scheldt-Dolphin and beacon subsequently damaged by Bruges-Bruges proceeding down; Chatwood proceeding up; steamship Atland properly turning in river- Starboarding by Chatwood across Bruges' course-Whether made necessary by Atland's action-Duty of Chatwood to have sounded helm signal- Scheldt navigation rules, Nos, 35, 40- Alleged excessive speed and bad look-out on part of Bruges-Chatwood held liable for whole of damage.

THE "STAGHOUND."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 74

Collision between barge Colombo (one of five barges in tow of tug Bee) and steamship Staghound in Limehouse Reach, River Thames-Colombo proceeding up river; Staghound preparing to proceed down-Whether the Colombo was swung into the Staghound or whether the Staghound's head moved into the Colombo-Inference to be drawn from nature of Colombo's damage-Conflict of testimony -Staghound found alone to blame.

MEYER, LTD. v. OSAKEYHTIO CARELIA TIMBER COMPANY, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 76

Sale of goods-Rejection by buyers-"The wood goods hereinafter specified . . . to be ready for shipment on June 15, 1928 . . . Buyers shall not reject the goods herein specified"-Clause permitting postponement of shipment in case of strikes-Delay in shipment owing to strike-Shipment of 1929 timber under contract-Whether a breach of warranty entitling the buyers to damages or a breach of condition entitling the buyers to reject-Umpire's award upholding buyers' claim to reject-Held, affirming award, that "to be ready for shipment on June 15, 1928," was a condition of the contract; and that the shipment of 1929 timber was a breach of that condition, which justified rejection- Meyer, Ltd. v. Kivisto, 35 Ll.L.Rep. 102, 265, distinguished.

THE "ARUBA."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 81

Collision between steamships Inga I and Aruba in River Ouse-Inga I proceeding down; Aruba aground-Whether Inga I ported too late to avoid collision or whether the Aruba came astern into the Inga I-Finding that Aruba came astern-Excessive speed of Inga I on approaching grounded vessel Aruba-Both found to blame- Costs-False story presented by Aruba-Aruba ordered to pay half costs of Inga I.

THE "PEURSUM."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 83

Salvage-Services rendered by tugs, salvage experts, &c., to steamship Peursum, aground in River Avon (Somersetshire) during dense fog-Rudder and propeller disabled-Navigation in river difficult-Strong tide-Other vessels aground in close proximity- Vessel prevented from swinging by means of ground anchor-Vessel refloated and towed to dock-£3800 awarded on salved values of £84,940.

THE "ASPHODEL."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 95

Collision between sailing barges Centaur and Asphodel in Sea Reach, River Thames-Centaur bound up; Asphodel bound down - Finding that both vessels were running free-Duty of Asphodel under Collision Regulations, Art. 17 (c) to have kept out of the way of the Centaur-Asphodel found alone to blame.

SEWARAM v. ELLERMAN LINES, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 97

Bill of lading-Damage to cargo (bales of cotton) by sea water-Unseaworthiness or perils of the sea-Leak in ballast tank air pipe-Damaged pipe produced for examination-Inferences to be drawn from nature of damage and from fact that pipe was encased in wood-Held, upon a consideration of the facts, that the pipe was broken at the commencement of the voyage; that the vessel was therefore unseaworthy; and that the shipowners had not discharged the onus of showing that they had exercised due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy-Judgment for cargo-owners.

DAMPSKIBS. A/S RUTH v. NEWFOUNDLAND CANADA STEAMSHIPS, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 100

Charter-party-Delivery of steamship- Hire "from the time (the day not to be a Sunday or legal holiday) the said steamer is delivered and placed at the disposal of the charterers ready to load and after written notice has been given between" business hours-Construction -Notice given by master during business hours that steamship "is lying at Christie's Wharf and is ready at your disposal from 1 p.m. to-day according to charter-party . . . Awaiting your instructions"- Whether letter a written notice or a request for orders-Umpire's finding that letter was merely a request for orders-Award upheld.

HAIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. LOUIS DREYFUS & CO., LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 101

Charter-party-Discharging expenses - "Charterers have the option of shipping other lawful merchandise . . . in which case freight to be paid on steamer's deadweight capacity for wheat in bags on this voyage at the rate above agreed on for heavy grain, but steamer not to earn more freight than she would if loaded with a full cargo of wheat in bags"-Loading of linseed in bays-Expenses in discharging linseed in bags less than expenses in discharging maize in bags but more than expenses in discharging maize in bulk or wheat in bags or in bulk- Umpire's finding that wheat and maize were heavy grain and that shipowners were not entitled to recover any extra expenses in discharging linseed- Award upheld.

LLOYD DEL PACIFICO v. BOARD OF TRADE.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 103

Arbitration - Costs - Jurisdiction of umpire-Sale of ship by Shipping Controller to Italian shipowners- Buyers' claim (1) that there was delay in delivery; (2) that there was a breach of warranty in that the vessel was unmerchantable-Claim (1) rejected; (2) upheld by umpire-Sellers ordered to pay part of buyers' costs-Case stated-Award set aside and judgment entered in favour of sellers-Refusal by umpire to vary his order as to costs -Supplemental award stating reasons -Irrelevance-Held, that, as it was clear on the face of the supplemental award that the umpire had not exercised a judicial discretion at all, that he had gone beyond the limits of his jurisdiction and his submission and had awarded costs on a perfectly wrong and improper ground, the supplemental award should be set aside.

BOURNEMOUTH - SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD & FERRY COMPANY v. HARVEY & SONS.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 111

Ferry - Franchise - Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road & Ferry Act, 1923- Action brought by plaintiffs (grantees under Act) for declaration of their exclusive right of ferry and for an injunction restraining defendants (competing ferry owners) from disturbing plaintiffs in their enjoyment of the ferry-Construction-Held, that, there being no correlative obligation on the plaintiffs to provide a ferry, the Act did not confer upon the plaintiffs an exclusive right-Claim dismissed.

THE "LALANDE."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 115

Overtaking collision between steamships Hedgehope and Lalande in Punta Indio Channel, River Plate-Lalande the overtaking vessel-Breach (1) of River Plate rule in attempting to pass without asking or being given permission by Hedgehope; (2) of Collision Regulations, Art. 24, in failing to keep out of the way of Hedgehope-Absence of negligence on part of Hedgehope- Lalande found alone to blame.

THE "MAR ROJO."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 118

Collision between steamships Windermere and Mar Rojo in River Tyne-Duty to pass port to port-Collision in Windermere's water-Breach of Tyne By-laws by Mar Rojo in navigating without sufficient ballast-Mar Rojo found alone to blame.

THE "SAPPHO."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 122

Salvage-Services rendered by tugs and salvage experts to steamship Sappho aground in River Avon (Somersetshire) in dense fog-Very strong tide-River navigation difficult - Other vessels aground in close proximity - Sappho held while flood tide made, refloated and towed to Bristol-Services short and simple but entailing some risk- £525 awarded on salved values of £9086.

THE "STORM COCK."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 127

Salvage-Services rendered by motor boat to tug Storm Cock aground in River Avon (Somersetshire) in dense fog- Tug attendant upon steamship also aground-Allegation that tug was held by steamship-Finding that the tug was not held but that the motor boat did move the tug from its position close to the steamship-£75 awarded on salved values of £4000.

THE "OLIVEBANK."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 129

Overtaking collision between steamships Rassay and Olivebank in Buenos Ayres Outer Roads-Vessels on converging courses with the Olivebank the overtaking vessel - Whether Rassay starboarded across the bows of the Olivebank-Both vessels man euvring to pick up pilots-Held, that collision was due to the failure of the Olivebank, as the overtaking vessel, to keep out of the way of the Rassay - Olivebank found alone to blame.

THE "SCHEER."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 133

Collision between H.M.S. Cornwall and steamship Scheer in Yang-tse river in broad daylight-Cornwall coming astern - Proper signals sounded - Ample warning given to Scheer-Time when "astern signal" should be sounded-Scheer's delayed helm and engine action-Scheer found alone to blame.

THE "GARTLY."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 138

Collision between steam drifters Girl Hilda and Gartly in Lowestoft Outer Harbour in broad daylight - Girl Hilda (closely following drifter Bountiful) outward bound; Gartly inward bound - Duty to pass port to port - Attempt by Gartly to enter on wrong side - Gartly in difficulties with Bountiful - Bad look-out on Gartly - Gartly found alone to blame.

THE "PANDION."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 142

Collision between motor vessel Ulster Monarch and steamship Pandion in Crosby Channel, Liverpool Bay - Ulster Monarch inward bound; Pandion outward bound - Collision in Ulster Monarch's water - Bad look-out - Failure of Pandion to stop or reverse in time - Pandion found alone to blame.

W. P. WOOD & CO. v. HANSEATISCHE REEDEREI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 144

Bill of Lading - Damage to cargo (wheat) - Unseaworthiness or perils of the sea - Three classes of damage alleged: (1) Heat and moisture damage due to proximity of wood cargo; (2) Wheat in bilges due to defective caulking in hold; (3) Sea water through slit in ballast tank air pipe - Inference to be drawn from the logs, the evidence and survey report - Held, that the weather was so exceptionally severe as to constitute a peril of the sea; that the damage was due to that sea peril; and that there was no breach by the shipowners of their obligation to exercise due diligence to make and keep the vessel seaworthy, &c. - Canadian Water-Carriage of Goods Act, 1910, Sect. 4 - Judgment for shipowners.

W. H. COCKERLINE & CO. v. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 150

Revenue - Excess Profits Duty - Liability of subject - Dispute between subject and Inland Revenue - Duty and penalties subsequently paid by subject following agreement between parties- No assessment-Right of subject to recover alleged overpayment - Held, that the agreement "finally determined" the matter between the parties and that there was no right of appeal -Finance Act, 1926, Sect. 38.

IN RE NATIONAL BENEFIT ASSURANCE CO., LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 153

Insurance - Reinsurance - Premiums - Treaties (inward and outward) between A and B companies - Premiums credited to B company by A company -No policies issued - Treaties void - B company wound up - Right of A company to return of premiums - Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sect. 84- Failure of consideration - Held, that, there being no actual payment of premiums to B company and the treaties being void, no claim under Sect. 84 could properly be made; held, further, that, even if premiums had actually been paid to B company, having regard to the penalties imposed by the Stamp Act, 1891, Sect. 97, the issue of unstamped policies was illegal, and therefore in that case also there was no right of recovery under Sect. 84-As to the plea of total failure of consideration, held, that, premiums having been paid under an unlawful agreement, there was no right of recovery - Held, also, that as the treaties, which were illegal, had been partially carried into effect, any payment under those treaties could not be recovered.

THE "BRIAN BORU."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 159

Collision between sailing barges Gladys (in tow of tug Barnes) and Brian Boru in Blackwall Reach, River Thames - Brian Boru tacking up river - Gladys, navigating on south side of mid-channel, gradually overtaking Brian Boru - Sudden rounding by Brian Boru into Gladys -Held, that although the Gladys was proceeding up river in her wrong water the cause of the collision was the manoeuvre of the Brian Boru in throwing herself across the course of the Gladys - Port of London River By-laws, 1914-1926, Rules 32, 33, 37 and 38-Appeal dismissed.

THE "IKALA."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 163

Collision - Damages - Action brought and subsequently settled - Agreement as to payment of costs - Reference to Registrar as to quantum of damages- Objection to report - Report sent back to Registrar for re-investigation- Further report - Time from which interest on damages and on costs should run.

THE "LATHARNA."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 166

Contract - Repairs and alterations to yacht - Claim for price - Contracts entered to between plaintiffs and defendant - Substituted work carried out - Whether authorised - Held, confirming the Registrar's report, that the substance of the original contracts had gone and that with the sanction of defendant's servant substituted works (outside the contemplation of parties when the original contracts were made) were carried out which should be paid for on a time and lime basis.

EASTWOOD STEAMSHIP CO., LTD. v. BUNGE Y BORN, LTDA.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 169

Charter-party-Dead freight-Charterers to load a full and complete cargo of grain - "(44) Captain has the liberty of sailing without full cargo, provided quantity loaded within" certain limits - Insufficient depth of water at charterers' berth - Inability to load full and complete cargo, though amount of cargo loaded within limits - Refusal by charterers to load further cargo at C Wharf where water was deeper - Proposition made by charterers to captain to leave berth for period, in expectation of rise of water, and to return later to complete loading, lay days to cease during that period - Proposition declined by captain, vessel sailing without full and complete cargo - Held, that the proposition was no more than a suggestion made by the charterers and did not amount to a repudiation of the charter-party; that the action taken by the captain in sailing was taken under Clause 44; and that therefore the owners were not entitled to claim dead freight-award upheld.

CORPORATION OF TRINITY HOUSE (LONDON) v. "CEDAR BRANCH" (OWNERS).

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 173

Merchant shipping - Light dues - Loading of cargo for foreign ports at Swansea: London: Newcastle: Glasgow: Liverpool: thence abroad - Dues paid as foreign-going vessel - Further cargo loaded at Glasgow for Liverpool - Whether vessel concurrently engaged in home-trade voyage and liable also to pay the appropriate dues - Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898, Schedule II, Rule 2 - Held, that the vessel was on one voyage as a foreign-going vessel and that she was not liable to pay home-trade dues.

BERGENS DAMPSKIBS-ASSURANCE FORENING v. SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 175

Insurance - Reinsurance - Arranged total loss - Severe stranding damage to vessel - Claim against insurers - Compromise of claim on basis of constructive total loss - Claim by insurers against reinsurers - Whether an "arranged total loss" - Held, that, as there was neither a constructive total loss nor a real claim for one, the loss did not come within the words "arranged total loss" and therefore that there was no right of recovery from the reinsurers.

EVANS v. WARD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 177

Broker - Insurance broker - Claim by assured against underwriters under a motor insurance policy - Non-disclosure of material facts-Inaccurate proposal form - Allegation that complete information was given to broker - No evidence that broker was agent for underwriters - Claim dismissed.

ARMOUR & CO. v. GREEN STAR STEAMSHIP CO., LTD. (THE "ANDREE.")

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 178

General average - Contribution - Fire on board vessel Andree - Sacrifices made by master at expense of vessel and cargo - Caryo owners' lien - Voyage continued - Vessel subsequently sunk by collision with steamship H. F. Alexander - Andree raised, further expenditures being made in excess of value of property salved - Andree towed to port, where voyage abandoned - Recovery of collision damages by master of Andree (on behalf of owners of Andree and cargo) from owners of H. F. Alexander - Claim by cargo-owners (in satisfaction of their lien arising out of fire expenditure) to share also in amounts recovered by owners of Andree - Incorporation in bill of lading contract of York-Antwerp Rules, 1890 - "(XVII): The contribution to a general average shall be made upon the actual values of the property at the termination of the adventure . . ." - Held, that, as the value of the lien depended upon the value of the res at "the termination of the adventure," and as at that time the res was valueless, the lien also was valueless. Claim dismissed.

MCCAFFERTY v. MACANDREWS & CO., LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 183

Workmen's compensation-Claim by ship's fireman incapacitated as result of typhoid fever - Common law action commenced - Action dismissed - Motion requesting Judge to assess compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925 - Whether action brought in time - Right of appeal from Judge's award - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Sects. 14 (1), 29 (2) - Construction - Held, that the action was brought "within the time . . . limited for taking proceedings" under Sect. 29 (2) and that the claim for compensation was therefore properly entertained by the Judge; and that there was the same right of appeal from the Judge's award as from an award in ordinary compensation proceedings.

SIR WILLIAM GARTHWAITE (INSURANCE) LTD. v. PORT OF MANCHESTER INSURANCE CO., LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 194

Practice - Discovery of documents - Marine insurance - Reinsurance - Affidavit of ship's papers - Right of re-reinsurers-Wether Court has discretion - Held, that it was the invariable practice of the Courts in such circumstances to order an affidavit of ship's papers - Appeal dismissed.

THE "FEDERIKO GLAVIC."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 196

Salvage - Services rendered by tugs Torfrida and Wild Rose to steamship Federiko Glavic off Barry - Very bad weather - Steamship dragging her anchors - Risk of going ashore - £1500 awarded on salved values of £55,752.

THE "CATO."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 196

Salvage - Services rendered by steam trawler Loch Nevis to steamship Cato in Bristol Channel - £1570 left for division among salvors after allowing £1356 for repairs and £75 for incidental expenses - Apportionment of award between owners and crew of twelve - Custom - £570 awarded to crew.

THE "EFFRA."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 200

Collision between steamships Fireglow and Effra in Northfleet Hope, River Thames - Fireglow bound up; Effra bound down - View obstructed by steamship Mooltan properly manoeuvring to enter Tilbury Docks - Fireglow found to blame in navigating on wrong side of river, endeavouring in face of danger to get to her right side and in failing to take off her way in time - Effra (proceeding against tide) found to blame in navigating on wrong side of river, in starboarding and in failing to take off her way in time - Apportionment: Fireglow, two-fifths; Effra, three-fifths.

MONTAGUE L. MEYER, LTD. v. TRAVARU A/B H. CORNELIUS.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 204

Sale of goods - Condition or warranty - Timber "hereinafter specified" - "Specification: About 15 standards . . . c.i.f. London . . . Under deck . . . Buyers shall not reject the goods herein specified but shall accept or pay for them in terms of contract against shipping documents" - Timber shipped on deck - Right of buyers to reject - Held, that the words "under deck" were a condition of the contract; also, that they were part of the contract description of the timber sold; and that therefore on both those grounds there was a right to reject.

F. S. BARTON (REVENUE OFFICER) v. UNION LIGHTERAGE COMPANY, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 207

Rating - Industrial hereditaments - Derating - Barge-repairing yard - Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, Sects. 3, 4 - Construction - Principles to be applied - Held, that in determining the primary purpose the immediate and not the ulterior purpose was to be considered - Appeal allowed - Premises restored to special list.

MEYER, LTD. v. OSAKEYHTIO CARELIA TIMBER COMPANY, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 212

Sale of goods - Rejection by buyers - "The wood goods hereinafter specified . . . to be ready for shipment on June 15, 1928 . . . Buyers shall not reject the goods herein specified" - Clause permitting postponement of shipment in case of strikes - Delay in shipment owing to strike-Shipment of 1929 timber under contract - Whether a breach of warranty entitling the buyers to damages or a breach of condition entitling the buyers to reject-Umpire's award upholding buyers' claim to reject - Held, affirming award, that "to be ready for shipment on June 15, 1928," was a condition of the contract; and that the shipment of 1929 timber was a breach of that condition, which justified rejection - Meyer, Ltd. v. Kivisto, 35 Ll.L.Rep. 102, 265, distinguished - Appeal dismissed.

THE "SHANDON."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 217

Salvage - Services rendered by tugs Margaret Ham, Torfrida and Nora to steamship Shandon off Barry-Agreed award-Apportionment by Counsel - Appeal by master and crew of Margaret Ham for larger percentage of award dismissed.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LTD. v. JOHN I. THORNYCROFT & CO., LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 219

Contract - Shipbuilding - Supply of refuelling barges - First barge supplied found to be leaky - Rejection - Cancellation of contract - Claim for return of amount paid on account - Held, that plaintiffs were justified in cancelling and that they were entitled to recover the amount claimed.

LINDSAY BLEE DEPOTS, LTD. v. MOTOR UNION INSURANCE CO., LTD.; MOTOR UNION INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. PROVINCIAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., AND BRITISH FIRE INSURANCE CO., LTD. (THIRD PARTIES.)

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 220

Insurance (marine) - Loss of and damage to coal through sinking of barge - Discharge of coal from steamship into barge - Coal covered "until the said ship shall have arrived at as above and the said goods and merchandises be there discharged and safely landed" -Barge, used as floating coal depot, loaded with 1000 tons (full capacity 1450 tons) - Inference that barge would have been fully loaded later - Sinking of barge during night - Third party proceedings - Alleged double insurance-Whether loss covered by policy issued by third parties- Meaning of "safely landed" - Held, that in the absence of custom "safely landed" meant what it said and that therefore, as the consignee had dispensed with landing in its true sense, the risk under the policy was determined upon discharge-Held, further, that discharge had ceased none the less that it was probable that further coal would have been discharged into the barge - Goodwin, Ferreira & Co. v. Lamport & Holt, 34 Ll.L.Rep. 192, distinguished.

THE "ARUBA."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 225

Collision between steamships Inga I and Aruba in River Ouse - Inga I proceeding down; Aruba aground - Whether Inga I ported too late to avoid collision or whether the Aruba came astern into the Inga I - Finding that the Aruba came astern- Excessive speed of Inga I on approaching grounded vessel Aruba-Breach of good seamanship-Both found to blame - Appeal by Inga I dismissed.

THE "EVELEEN."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 227

Collision between steam dredger No. 15 and collier Eveleen in River Mersey-Duty to pass port to port - Initial breaches of regulations by each vessel-Finding that although each vessel originally broke the "starboard side" rule, the vessels eventually got safely red to red, and that the collision was brought about by the starboarding of the No. 15 across the course of the Eveleen - Criticism of Eveleen's log - Type usually kept by such a vessel - No. 15 found alone to blame.

THE "WALLSEND."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 236

Collision between steamships Jebba and Wallsend in River Elbe during foggy weather - Dispute as to resp ective manoeuvres - Failure of Wallsend to erect her anchor light - Finding that the Wallsend was at anchor and that the Jebba, which was about to anchor, came into her; that the Wallsend was properly sounding her bell; and that the absence of the Wallsend's anchor light did not contribute to the collision - Jebba found alone to blame for proceeding at excessive speed and in failing to reverse her engines - Practice - Method of trial - Two witnesses on each side, statements of other witnesses, and documents approved.

THE "SECURITY."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 239

Collision between steamship Forth and lighter Thames IV (in tow of tug Security) in Blackwall Reach, River Thames - Duty to pass red to red - Collision due to Security starboarding across bows of sailing barge into Forth's water - Security found alone to blame.

THE "GEFION."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 243

Salvage - Services alleged to have been rendered by steam trawler Explorator to auxiliary schooner Gefion off Broadstairs - Gefion leaky after grounding on sandbank - Whether Explorator engaged to lead in Gefion to safety and whether she was prevented from rendering any further service - Inference to be drawn from the fact that Gefion's documents contained no mention of the Explorator - Held, that no service was in fact rendered-Claim dismissed.

ROGERSON v. SCOTTISH AUTOMOBILE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 247

Insurance (motor car) - Third party risks - Declaration claimed by assured that he was entitled to be indemnified by the insurers - "This insurance shall cover the legal liability as aforesaid of the assured in respect of the use by the assured of any motor car (other than a hired car) provided that such car is at the time of the accident being used instead of the insured car" - Insurance of Lancia torpedo-bodied car - Exchange for Lancia saloon car of approximately same value - Whether saloon car being used "instead of" insured car - Held, upon a consideration of the facts, that there could not be implied from the policy any term that the continuance of ownership of the car originally insured was necessary for the continuance of the cover in respect of third party risks; and that the assured was therefore entitled to the declaration claimed.

W. NAUMANN v. EDWARD NATHAN & CO., LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 249

Arbitration-Award-Motion to set aside -Sale of goods (cassia oil)-Dispute as to quality-Alleged misconduct of umpire in conduct of arbitration- "Any dispute arising from this contract to be settled by arbitration in London in the usual way as soon as it may arise"-Held, that the evidence showed that the dispute had been settled by arbitration in London in the usual way and that the procedure adopted was not contrary to public policy-Motion dismissed-Appeal dismissed.

THE "CHATWOOD."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 252

Collision between steamships Bruges and Chatwood in River Scheldt-Bruges proceeding down against tide; Chatwood proceeding up; steamship Atland properly turning in river- Starboarding by Chatwood across Bruges' course-Whether made necessary by Atland's action-Duty of Chatwood to have sounded helm signal -Scheldt navigation rules, No. 40 (3) (4)-Duty of vessels proceeding up and down river to have regard to vessels turning-Held, on appeal, that the collision was due to a breach by each vessel of Rule 40 (3)-Vessels found equally to blame.

THE "HEKTOR."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 260

Salvage-Services rendered by steam trawler Teresa to steamship Hektor- Damage to trawler's hawser and engines -Depreciation in value of fish cargo-Agreed deposit made by owners of Hektor, the amount not to exclude the salvors' right to claim the possible difference in selling price of fish due to delay in arrival of trawler in port- "This difference to be determined by a certificate from the proper authority . . ." - Construction of agreement-Award by trial Judge of £150 for damage to trawler and £433 for fish value depreciation-Appeal dismissed.

THE "ETRIB."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 262

Salvage-Services rendered (1) by tugs King and Sea Prince (2) by pilot to steamship Etrib in River Avon- Grounding of Etrib in dense fog- Risk of damage from other vessels aground in vicinity-Etrib held by King while tide made-Etrib turned in river and towed by tugs to Avonmouth -Pilot's responsibility beyond ordinary service-Awards: King, £340; Sea Prince, £110; pilot, £90.

THE "WEGA."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 268

TEMPUS SHIPPING CO., LTD. v. LOUIS DREYFUS & CO.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 273

General average - Claim by shipowners against cargo-owners for contribution towards ship's expenditure occasioned by spontaneous combustion of bunkers - Best bunker coal - Finding that bunkers were unfit and that vessel was unseaworthy-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 502 - Effect - Held, on appeal (Scrutton, L.J., dissenting) that there was a common danger; that, it being proved that fire, although resulting from unseaworthiness, occurred without the "actual fault or privity" of the shipowners, the shipowners were entitled to recover from the cargo-owners a proportionate part of the expenditure. Counterclaim by cargo-owners for loss of or damage to heated cargo discharged into lighter at Montevideo - Whether shipowners protected by Sect. 502 - Whether damage due to "fire" on board - "Actual fault or privity" - Whether shipowners' managers in fault in failing to give specific instructions to the captain as to fires in bunkers - Held, dismissing cross-appeal, that the heating of the cargo was no doubt due to incandescent bunker coal; that the managers were not in fault in leaving the emergency of bunker fires to the practical experience of the master; and that the shipowners were therefore protected by Sect. 502.

THE "STEINGRIM."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 284

Collision between ketch Mazeppa and steamship Steingrim off Harwich during dense fog - Subsequent sinking of Mazeppa - Admission by Steingrim that she was to blame for collision - Whether the subsequent sinking was a proximate result of the collision - Held, on the facts, that the master of the Mazeppa exercised seamanlike care of his vessel after collision and that the vessel was not improperly abandoned - Judgment for ketch.

THE "DEPUTE GEORGES CHAIGNE."

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 290

Collision - Damages - Reference - Objection to Registrar's report - Loss of use of supply ship for whalers - Nine days' delay - Basis of assessment - Failure of Registrar to consider whether, if the supply ship had arrived on time, the whale catchers would have been ready - Evidence to be adduced from whale catchers' log books - Report sent back.

ALLGEMEINE VERSICHERUNGS GESELLSCHAFT HELVETIA v. ADMINISTRATOR OF GERMAN PROPERTY.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 292

Reprisals Order, 1915 - Consignment of enemy goods per neutral vessel-Goods seized and detained under order of British Prize Court - Goods insured with neutral underwriters against war risks - Abandonment of goods to underwriters on payment for total loss - Right of underwriters to recover proceeds from Administrator of Enemy Property - Effect of Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, Sect. 6 - Held, that the abandonment effected an assignment; but that property detained and the proceeds of property sold under the Reprisals Order, 1915, were not affected by Sect. 6, in that (a) the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, did not reach or bind the Crown; and (b) that Act was not part of the law to be applied to property which was the subject of the Reprisals Order - Judgment for underwriters.

LIBAU WOOD COMPANY v. H. SMITH & SONS, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 296

Sale of goods (timber, c.i.f.) - Rejection of documents by buyers-Bill of lading, acknowledging shipment of 854.48 fathoms, indorsed: "Part of cargo lost during loading by rafting . . ." -Amount lost ascertained afterwards to be 155 fathoms - "Sellers to provide a sworn certificate that all the props measured by the buyer's measurer have been duly shipped" - Timber discharged, sorted and piled by buyers, acting in the capacity of stevedores - Whether amounting to an acceptance of the goods - Held, that as there was a substantial difference between the bill of lading quantity and the invoice quantity the buyers were entitled to reject the documents; that the provision that the sellers were to provide a sworn certificate that all the props measured by the buyers' measurer had been duly shipped was a condition of the contract, the breach of which was a further ground of rejection; and that the buyers, as stevedores, were acting on behalf of the ship, and that any work done beyond dumping the timber in the usual way was a matter between the buyers and the shipowners and did not amount to an acceptance by the buyers - Judgment for buyers.

PAILOR v. CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 301

Insurance (motor car)-Accident-Claim to be indemnified - Car driven by insured's friend engaged on his own employer's business - Policy covering any friend or relation of the insured . . . whilst driving any motor car described in the schedule with the insured's knowledge and consent-Company not to be liable if car used for other than private pleasure or professional purposes, except that if the car be used for driving to and from the insured's place of business or for making personal business calls (excluding commercial travelling) or personal visits to the scene of his business operations the indemnity nevertheless to apply-Construction of policy-Held, that a general "knowledge and consent" was sufficient to bring the friend within the ambit of the policy, but that the friend's use of the car on his own employer's business did not come within the exception to the exception clause, and that the company were therefore not liable.

R. & W. PAUL, LTD. v. "COLORADO SPRINGS" (OWNERS); MICKS, LAMBERT & CO. v. SAME.

(1930) 37 Ll.L.Rep. 303

Bill of lading - Damage to cargo (grain in bulk) - Grain shipped in good order and condition and delivered damaged - Plaintiffs' claim that damage was due to (1) unseasoned dunnage, shifting boards, shores, &c.; (2) unsheathed stokehold bulkhead; and (3) unlagged steam pipes contained in unsheathed tunnel and tunnel recess; and that vessel was accordingly unseaworthy- Defence; that damage was due to inherent vice and/or Act of God and/or perils of the seas - Incorporation of Harter Act - Held, that although the vessel was an oil-burning vessel, the bulkhead should have been sheathed; that having regard to the "state of the knowledge and standards prevailing at the material time" the pipes should have been lagged and the tunnel and tunnel recess should have been sheathed; that the vessel was therefore unseaworthy and that the facts showed that the shipowners had failed to exercise due diligence to make it seaworthy; and that accordingly the shipowners were precluded by the Harter Act from relying upon the bill of lading exceptions of inherent vice or Act of God or perils of the seas - Judgment for plaintiffs.

Lloyd's Law Reports