i-law.com

OCEANIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD. v. EVANS.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Marine insurance-Removal of wreck- Total loss of plaintiffs' vessel C- Contract by P & A to remove wreck- Policy issued by defendant "only to cover [P & A's] liability to [plaintiffs] under contract . . . and to indemnify [plaintiffs] against any claims made by the Cork Harbour Commissioners or any other parties by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by [P & A] in relation to the removal of the wreck"-Failure of P & A to implement contract-Sums paid to other contractors by Cork Harbour Commissioners, acting under statutory powers, to complete demolition -Recovered from plaintiffs-Right of plaintiffs to be indemnified under policy.

THE "MASUNDA."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 10

Collision between steamships Princess Maquinna and Masunda at Port Alberni, B.C.-Princess Maquinna outward bound; Masunda at anchor- Evidence that Masunda's anchor lights were out immediately after collision- Whether lights were being properly exhibited before collision-Effect of collision-Possibility of lights being extinguished by force of blow.

THE "LONDON CORPORATION."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 14

Collision - Damages - Reference - Dragging collision between steamships Benguela and London Corporation while laying up in River Blackwater -Both admittedly to blame-Amount of repair damages agreed-Subsequent agreement by owners of Benguela to sell her to shipbreakers-Effect of collision upon price-Whether Benguela still entitled to recover her agreed damages for repairs from London Corporation even though they were not executed.

PARKYN & PETERS AND ANOTHER v. COPPACK BROS. & CO.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 17

Charter-party - Unseaworthiness - Sinking of vessel 40 years old following development of leak shortly after leaving port-Fair weather-Claim by cargo-owner-Whether due diligence exercised by shipowners to make vessel seaworthy-Onus of proof-Evidence of four-yearly classification surveys; that last survey was held more than four years previously; and that vessel developed a similar leak three months before the sinking and was beached- Whether leak then adequately repaired -Contention by shipowners that her bottom was pierced by an obstruction while lying on the hard at her loading port-Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924, Schedule, Art. IV., r. 1.

STEAUA ROMANA SOCIETATE ANONIMA PENTRU INDUSTRIA PETROLEULUI v. A/S. OLJEFART II.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 21

Charter-party-Damage to plaintiffs' oil cargo by contamination with other oil shipped in defendants' steamer- Leakage from tanks-Oil shipped at Constantza-Explosion in engine-room at commencement of voyage causing (inter alia) damage to valves-Sufficient spare valves unavailable- Engines accordingly run on five instead of six cylinders, resulting in abnormal vibration-Leakage discovered on voyage-Contention by shipowners that the leakage was the result of the starting of rivets due to an excepted cause, viz., an explosion, aggravated by the abnormal vibration of the engines-Latent defect-Allegation by cargo-owners that leakiness was due to unrepaired damage sustained in heavy weather on a previous voyage-Norwegian law-Duty of master to call in surveyor where vessel has sustained damage necessitating material repairs-Failure of master to do so.

THE "SUCARSECO."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 28

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.

MONK v. WARBEY AND OTHERS.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 33

Road Traffic Act, 1930-Motor insurance -Third-party risks-Claim by plaintiff in respect of injuries sustained in motor accident-W's car lent to K and driven by M-Negligence of K and M resulting in injuries to plaintiff- W, K and M joined as defendants- Policy taken out by W covering himself against third-party risks if he or members of his family driving car- K and M not covered-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sect. 35-Breach of statutory duty by W-Whether breach satisfied by penalty imposed by Sect. 35-Construction of statute-Remoteness of damage-Whether action against W premature in that damages had not been quantified at date of issue of writ.

BULMER v. "BALUCHISTAN" (OWNERS).

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 39

Workmen's compensation-Drunkenness- Seaman-Fall from ladder from quay to ship-Death of seaman-Claim by dependants-Evidence that seaman at time of accident was under the influence of drink-Whether accident arose out of and in the course of the seaman's employment.

THE "HERO" AND THE "ECCLESTON."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 44

Collision between barges (in tow of tug Baron) and steamship Hero in Upper Pool, River Thames-Baron bound down; Hero bound up; Eccleston (tug) (towing barges), bound down on wrong side of river ahead of Baron-Breaking adrift of barges from Eccleston- Endeavour by Hero to pass to south of drifting barges-Slight collision between Hero and drifting barges- Failure of Hero to recover, resulting in collision with barges in tow of Baron -Visibility-Speeds-Look-out.

THE "DAPHNE."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 51

Negligence-Damage to cross-channel telephone cable-Anchoring of defendants' steamship Daphné off Dover owing to bad weather-Anchor found to be foul of cable-Cutting of cable when endeavouring to free anchor-Instructions and charts in possession of vessel warning her of cables and advising her to anchor west of Admiralty Pier- Anchoring of vessel to south-west of pier-Wind of gale force-Dragging of vessel - Suggestion that defendants were liable under Telegraph Act, 1878, without proof of negligence.

THE "STANCOR."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 57

Collision between Norwegian steamship Ramsholm and Latvian steamship Stancor in English Channel in dense fog-Ramsholm bound up Channel; Stancor bound down Channel-Sinking of Ramsholm-Speeds.

LENSEN SHIPPING, LTD. v. ANGLO-SOVIET SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 62

Charter-party-Breach-Claim by shipowners against charterers for balance of hire; cost of repairs to ship; and indemnity in respect of cargo claims- Vessel loading at Leningrad-List to port-Action taken by master to correct list-List increased-Vessel towed from berth to open sea-Sudden swing over to starboard-Part of deck cargo shot overboard, damaging vessel- Swing back to port-List due to fact that vessel was unknowingly aground in her loading berth-(1) Vessel to load "where she can lie safely always afloat or safe aground where steamers of similar size and draft are accustomed to lie aground in safety. (10) In the event of loss of time caused by drydocking or by other necessary measures to maintain the efficiency of steamer, or by . . . damage to hull or other accident preventing the working of the steamer and lasting more than 24 consecutive hours, hire to cease from commencement of such loss of time until steamer is again in efficient state to resume service. Should steamer be driven into port, or to anchorage by stress of weather, or in the event of steamer trading to shallow harbours, rivers or ports with bars or in case of accident to cargo, causing detention to steamer, time so lost and expenses incurred shall be for charterers' account, even if caused through fault or want of due diligence by owners' servants. (12) Owners only to be responsible for delay in delivery of the steamer or for delay during the currency of this charter and for loss or damage to goods on board, if such delay or loss has been caused by want of due diligence on the part of owners or their manager, in making steamer seaworthy and fitted for the voyage or any other personal act or omission or default of owners or their manager. Owners not to be responsible in any other case nor for damage or delay whatsoever and howsoever caused even if caused by the neglect or default by owners' servants. Charterers to be responsible for loss or damage caused to steamer or owners by goods being loaded contrary to the terms of this charter or by improper or careless loading or stowage of goods or any other improper or negligent act on their part or that of their servants"- Finding of umpire that there was no want of due diligence on the part of the shipowners or their servants and that the charterers were liable-Case stated.

VACHA v. GILLETT AND OTHERS.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 67

Slander of title-Claim by plaintiff as owner of goods-Charter of vessel belonging to M.P.Ltd., for shark-fishing expedition-Goods supplied by plaintiff-Expedition abandoned-G. appointed as receiver of debenture holders of M.P.Ltd.-Goods consigned by plaintiff to M.G. & Co. to sell to best possible advantage -African Agency employed by M.G. & Co.-Claim by plaintiff against G., M.P.Ltd., M.G. & Co. and African Agency "for damages for slander of title and also against M.G. & Co. and African Agency for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to certain goods entrusted to them for sale free from any lien for warehouse charges or otherwise" - Counterclaim by M.G. & Co. and African Agency for storage charges. Warehousing-Claim for charges-Lien- Whether warehousemen entitled to storage expenses incurred after giving notice of exercise of lien-Somes v. British Empire Shipping Company, (1860) 8 H.L.C. 338, discussed.

WATSON v. R. C. A. VICTOR COMPANY, INC.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 77

Salvage - Services rendered by steam trawler Lord Talbot to cinematograph equipment landed from wrecked foreign seaplane upon bare rock off coast of Greenland "with no bird life or vegetation or shelter, remote from sources of succour, and the party had no means of communication" - Whether seaplane a "ship or vessel" -Salvage from land-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 742-Air Navigation Act, 1920, Sect. 11.

THE "MAJA."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 83

Collision between steamships Camberwell and Maja in Barrow Deep, River Thames, in fog-Camberwell bound down river, having just left her anchorage; Maja bound up river- Duty of vessels in fog to sound whistle signals-Speeds-Porting of Maja into Camberwell's water-Look-out.

RICHARDS v. PORT OF MANCHESTER INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., AND ANOTHER.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 88

Motor insurance-Third-party claim- Plaintiff injured by car, driven by F, hired from second defendant-Cover note issued by second defendant (as agent for first defendants) subject to policy conditions-Authority of agent -Cover note ineffective by reason of condition excluding insurance of Jews -Alleged breach of statutory duty under Part II of Road Traffic Act, 1930, in hiring out car without effective insurance-Whether statement of claim disclosed cause of action and whether it was defective in that it did not allege that F had been sued to judgment by plaintiff or that F was made a party to the action.

DORTON v. SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANY.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 92

Negligent navigation-Personal injury sustained by workman owing to collapse of gangway from moored barge P to wharf-Claim by workman against owners of tug M-Allegation by plaintiff that one of the barges in tow of the tug M collided with the P causing the gangway to collapse-Contentions by defendants that the P was insecurely moored and that the gangway was in an unsafe condition.

ALGEMEENE BANKVEREENIGING v. WORLD AUXILIARY INSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD.; SAME v. LANGTON.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 95

Insurance-Banker's policy-Claim by Belgian bank-Practice of bank to issue bonds to customers paying in money on deposit-Bonds originally issuable by bank manager upon his signature alone-Instructions to bank manager to use new form of bond requiring countersignature by two directors-Misappropriation by bank manager of customers' deposits by use of old form-Whether recoverable by bank under policy covering losses incurred "by reason of any money. . . in which they are interested, or the custody of which they have undertaken, and which now are . . . or at any time during the said period of twelve months may be in or upon their own premises . . . being (while so in or upon such premises . . .) lost, destroyed, or otherwise made away with by . . . theft, robbery or hold-up, whether with or without violence, and whether from within or without, and whether by the officers, clerks and servants of the assured or any other person or persons whomsoever."

POLGLASE v. McNABB, ROUGIER & CO.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 98

Partnership-Account-Claim by plaintiff against defendants for balance alleged to be due-Claim admitted-Contention by defendants that plaintiff had negligently failed to collect certain debts due to the partnership.

BARRETT v. LONDON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 99

Motor insurance-Third party-B fatally injured by car driven by S-Defective foot brake cable-Action brought by plaintiff (dependant of B) against S- Judgment unsatisfied-S insured by defendants-Assignment of policy to plaintiff-Claim by plaintiff against defendants-Defence that they were not liable as the car was in an unroadworthy condition and that a condition of the policy provided that the assured was not covered if the car was driven in an unroadworthy condition-Hand brake in working order.

IN RE SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 105

Insurance company-Winding-up-Statutory 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 deposit formed part of the general assets of the company available for distribution among all its creditor or whether it was primarily applicable to the satisfaction of claim under motor insurance policies issued by the company - Summons by liquidator - Assurance Companies Act, 1909, Sects. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 32-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 35, 36, 37, 42, 43.

REVELL v. LONDON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 114

Motor insurance-Accidents involving injuries to third parties-Claim by assured for declaration that defendant insurance company were liable to indemnify her (assured)-Defence that company were entitled to avoid policy on ground of untrue answers in proposal form-"Q.: Have you or any of your drivers ever been convicted of any offence in connection with the driving of any motor vehicle? A.: No"- Driver in fact previously convicted (1) of unlawfully driving a car without a suitable reflecting mirror; (2) of unlawfully using a car without having in force an insurance policy covering third-party risks-Ambiguity-Further defence by company that any right to indemnity was forfeited by reason of a breach of a policy condition providing for forfeiture if the action was not commenced by the assured within three months of rejection of claim- Action not commenced until twelve months after rejection of claim- Validity-Road Traffic Act, 1930, Sects. 36, 38.

REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET "MACEDONIA" v. SLAUGHTER.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 119

Bill of lading-Charter-party-Demurrage -Discharging of cargo (London)- "The cargo shall . . . be discharged by the vessel in the customary manner as fast as the vessel can deliver during the ordinary working hours of the port, on to the quay and/or into lighters and/or craft and/or rafts and/or wagons and/or on to bogies and thereon stowed and/or stacked as customary at the port of discharge, the consignees having the right to select any one or more of these alternatives if customary and available at the time of discharge. In the execution of any work done beyond discharging cargo at the ship's rail or within reach of the ship's tackle or shore crane tackle, as the case may be, the shipowner shall act as stevedore with the liabilities only of such and not further or otherwise, but the shipowner shall not be liable for damage by fire, even though caused by the act or neglect of the shipowner or his servants or of any person for whom he is responsible"-Instructions given to ship by consignee to discharge overside into barges-Barges sent alongside by consignee-Strike of London lightermen shortly afterwards-Sufficient lightermen unavailable - Alternative method of discharge on to P.L.A. quay -Respective duties of shipowners and consignee-Part cargo discharged on to quay-P.L.A. accounts rendered to consignee and paid by him without protest-Shipowners subsequently informed by P.L.A. that consignee's consent must be obtained for discharge on to quay for his account-Whether consignee should have given notice to P.L.A. of his willingness to such method of discharge-Discharge delayed until end of strike-Claim by shipowners for demurrage.

BRUCE v. NEISH AND ANOTHER.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 127

Seaman - Unemployment indemnity - Jurisdiction of Board of Trade superintendent -Stranding of steam trawler Dulcibelle-Refloating in less than 12 hours-Discharge of seaman-Application by seaman to Board of Trade superintendent (in terms of Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sect. 387) requesting him to determine his wages for period of unemployment under and in terms of the Merchant Shipping (International Labour Conventions) Act, 1925, Sect. 1 (1)-Award-Plea-in-law by shipowner that superintendent had no jurisdiction to consider a seaman's right to unemployment indemnity under Sect. 1 (1) of the Act of 1925 and that his award should be set aside.

DAWSONS BANK, LTD. v. VULCAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 129

Fire insurance - Misdescription - Buildings insured by mortgagees-Destroyed by fire-Claim-Property described as "three buildings . . . constructed of brick walls and cement flooring in the ground storey, timber walls and flooring in the upper storey with shingled roof"-Evidence that front wall and two-thirds of each side wall were of timber - Whether misdescription material.

RICHARDS v. PORT OF MANCHESTER INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., AND BRAIN.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 132

Motor insurance - Third party claim - Plaintiff injured by car, driven by F, hired from second defendant - Cover note issued by second defendant (as agent for first defendants) subject to policy conditions-Authority of agent -Cover note ineffective by reason of condition excluding insurance of Jews -Alleged breach of statutory duty under Sect. 35 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in hiring out car without effective insurance-Whether statement of claim disclosed cause of action and whether it was defective in that it did not allege that F had been sued to judgment by plaintiff or that F was made a party to the action.

THE "ARPAD."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 134

Bill of lading-Short delivery (wheat)- Measure of damages-Payment into Court-Costs dependent upon Registrar's award of damages-Purchase by plaintiffs of wheat shipped in defendants' vessel-Resale-Non-delivery by defendants of 47 tons-Assessment of damages by Registrar on basis that, there being no market value, plaintiffs were entitled to restitutio in integrum -Report upheld by Bateson, J.-Set aside by Court of Appeal (Greer and Maugham, L.JJ., Scrutton, L.J., dissenting), it being held that damages must be assessed on the basis of the value of the wheat at the date of discharge -Further reference to Registrar -Report-Motion in objection by defendants on grounds (1) that the plaintiffs' claim for agency should not have been allowed; (2) that a deduction should have been made of an amount covering discharging expenses and trade discount; and (3) that a payment into Court by the defendants to meet a claim by co-plaintiffs for short delivery of another parcel of wheat shipped in defendants' vessel, that claim failing, should be allocated to the plaintiffs' claim.

CHANDRIS v. LOUIS DREYFUS & CO.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 141

Charter-party - Rectification - Capacity of vessel-Negotiations between brokers acting for shipowners and charterers- Charter drawn up by charterers' broker that vessel shall load "a full and complete cargo of linseed and/or groundnut kernels in bags . . . which owners undertake will be not more than 2300 tons and not less than 2000 tons English weight linseed and/or groundnut kernels in bags. The master to declare quantity of cargo required on readiness to load" - Allegation by owners that guaranteed capacity only concerned linseed in bags-Mistake.

SEEBERG v. RUSSIAN WOOD AGENCY, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 146

Charter-party - Demurrage - Strike of stevedores - Loading at Leningrad delayed - Discharge at Hull-Shipowners' lien for demurrage - Sum deposited by charterers (representatives in England of Exportles, Moscow) to release cargo-"9 (a). If the cargo cannot be loaded . . . by reason of a strike . . . of any class of workmen essential to the loading . . . the time for loading . . . shall not count during the continuance of such strike . . . (a strike . . . of the shipper's . . . men only shall not exonerate them from any demurrage for which they may be liable under this charter if by the use of reasonable diligence they could have obtained other suitable labour) . . ."-Whether a strike within the meaning of Clause 9 (a)-Relationship between Exportles and Russian Soviet Government considered-Allegation by shipowners that Exportles could have enforced the loading.

NEUE FISCHMEHL VERTRIEBSGESELLSCHAFT HASELHORST m.b.H v. YORKSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 151

Marine insurance - Unseaworthiness - Constructive total loss-Insurance with defendants of plaintiffs' shrimp drying factory vessel in tow of tug from Friedrichskoog to Cuxhaven - Vessel left by tug during voyage until tide more favourable - Vessel towed by local fishermen and anchored by them in position about a mile off Friedrichskoog-Breaking of back when tide fell - Defences: that vessel was unseaworthy at commencement of voyage; and misrepresentation -Statements by assured in effecting insurance that vessel was "of extraordinarily stable construction" and that "the vessel was fully overhauled in 1926 and rebuilt most solidly and strengthened by iron beams. The vessel has been surveyed at Friedrichskoog by the harbour inspection and was found to be most stable."

NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA v. CHINA NAVIGATION CO., LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 155

Collision between Japanese steamship Toyooka Maru and British steamship Kiangsu in Hongkong Harbour in fog -Toyooka Maru outward bound; Kiangsu inward bound-Weather becoming foggy-Decision by Toyooka Maru to cross fairway and to anchor in nearest available anchorage-Fog signals exchanged-Toyooka Maru's engines immediately stopped-Collision six minutes afterwards-Kiangsu's allegations against Toyooka Maru: (1) that she adopted a negligent and dangerous course in crossing the fairway in fog; (2) that she failed, on hearing the Kiangsu's first fog signal, to port her helm

DORMAN, LONG & CO., LTD. v. WM. CORY & SON, LTD.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 161

Negligence-Barges supplied by defendants to carry away excavated soil from cofferdam erected by plaintiffs in connection with construction of bridge over entrance to Victoria Docks -Collision between barge and cofferdam -Collapse of cofferdam-Plaintiffs' allegation that barge was brought up in an improper and negligent manner-Defendants' contention that there was no negligence in the navigation of the barge; and that the collapse of the cofferdam was due to its structure being weaker than was proper in a structure erected for such a purpose.

THE "LUIMNEACH."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 172

Collision between H.M.S. Whirlwind and steamship Luimneach in English Channel in fog-Whirlwind bound up Channel; Luimneach bound down Channel-Visibility-Speeds-Look-out -Allegation by Whirlwind that Luimneach ported her helm while blowing a starboard helm signal.

A/S. OCEAN v. BLACK SEA & BALTIC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., AND OTHERS.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 179

Marine insurance-Ice damage-Plaintiffs' vessel damaged by ice-Policy taken out with defendant underwriters "being on Norwegian conditions, according to the [Norwegian Insurance Plan] of 1930. . . . It is specially agreed that this policy covers ice damage irrespective of percentage"-Norwegian Insurance Plan-Par. 76 (6):- "Franchises: In the case of particular average damage to the ship, the insurance is effected without liability for the first

STRATHLORNE STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. ANDREW WEIR & CO.

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 185

Charter-party-Bill of lading-Conversion -Delivery by master without production of bills of lading-Liability of shipowners-Claim by shipowners to be indemnified by time charterers- Time charter by S Co. to W Co.-No demise-Sub-charter to T for carriage of rice from Rangoon to Chinese ports -Arrival of vessel before bills of lading-Bills of lading pledged by shipper to Dutch Bank, which had discounted bills of exchange drawn by shipper on consignee-Delivery without production of bills of lading permitted by captain upon instruction of J M Co., agents appointed by W Co. (or their agents)-No knowledge of pledge to Dutch Bank-Delivery made against letter of guarantee indorsed by native bank-Bills of exchange dishonoured -No recoupment under letter of guarantee-Action successfully brought by Dutch Bank against S Co. for conversion-Right of S Co. to indemnity by W Co. both at common law and under time charter-Position of J M Co. considered-Ambiguous instructions-Award that S Co. were entitled to be indemnified under both heads-Case stated.

THE "CORTON."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 195

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

THE "VADDER GERRIT."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 204

Collision between Dutch motor vessel Pinguin and German motor vessel Vadder Gerrit in Bugsby's Reach, River Thames-Pinguin bound down; Vadder Gerrit bound up river-Port helm action taken by Pinguin to pass astern of sailing barge tacking up river -Signal blown by Pinguin inviting Vadder Gerrit to pass green to green -Signal blown by Vadder Gerrit accepting-Signal not heard by Pinguin but acceptance inferred from broadening of Vadder Gerrit's lights -Subsequent hard-a-starboarding by Pinguin, it being assumed from the alleged opening of the Vadder Gerrit's red light that she wished to pass red to red-Dispute as to whether Vadder Gerrit opened her red - Speeds - Look-out.

THE "TOPA TOPA."

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 211

Salvage-Services rendered by German salvage vessels Seebar, Hermes, Ajax, Seeteufel, Reiher and Titan and salvage lighters Wille and Griep to American steamship Topa Topa stranded on reef off Heligoland-Vessel refloated and taken to Hamburg.

LIVANOS BROS. v. R. & W. PAUL, LTD. (THE "THEOFANO"); SAME v. SAME (THE "NESTOS").

(1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep. 215

(1) Bill of lading-Damage to cargo (maize) - Unseaworthiness - Claim by shipowners against defendant cargo-owners for balance of freight-Claim admitted-Counterclaim by defendants for damage to cargo by heating-Contention by shipowners that damage was due to inherent vice-Cargo purchased from shippers by defendants under London Corn Trade Association La Plata Grain Contract (Rye terms)- Payment by cash in London in exchange for shipping documents-Bills of lading indorsed to defendants- Right of defendants to sue-Whether maize passed unconditionally to defendants by appropriation under contract of sale-Defendants reimbursed their damages by shippers under rye terms clause-Right to recover damages from shipowners-Bills of Lading Act, 1855. (2) Bill of lading-Damage to cargo (maize)-Unseaworthiness-Claim by shipowners against defendant cargo-owners for balance of freight-Claim admitted-Counterclaim by defendants for damage to cargo by heating-Contention by shipowners that damage was due to inherent vice.

Lloyd's Law Reports