The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

34 DECISIONS AFFECTING SHIP- PING INTERESTS. | NEGLIGENCE IN TOWING.--The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Cir- cuit, in a recent case, holds that where the master of a canal boat at the time she was taken in tow had a master on board who in accordance with the usual custom undertook to make fast the tow: line on such boat, the tug is not.re- sponsible for his negligence in perform- ing such duty resulting in an injury to the tow through her going adrift by rea- son of the insecure fastening of the line and coming in collision with other ves-~ sels. DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED IN TOWING.-- . The 'entrance to the harbor at Duluth is through a canal 1,200 feet long and 300 feet wide, which extends in a gen- erally easterly and westerly direction, and is bounded by heavy cement piers on each side. The steamer John Harper was towing the barge Gawn, a sailing vessel from the vicinity of Devil's Island, on the usual course, to the port of Du- luth. The Gawn struck the south pier and was injured. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that it was negligence for a laden steamer which was towing a sailing vessel light upon a line 900 feet long when the steam- er approached the canal from a southerly direction into a northwesterly wind of 35 to 40 miles an hour which blew nearly athwart the line of the canal to fail ta wait for a tug or take some other reason: ably safe course, and to attempt to draw the barge, whose lights were visible, and which was drifting far to the leeward, into the canal. The case also holds that the master 'ofthe barge, who first learned when he was moving at the rate of 10 miles an hour, and was within 200 feet of the south pier, that his vesse! would be drawn against it, was not guilty of contributory negligence because he failed to throw off or cut his tow line before his barge strikes the pier: As to the duties involved in towage, the court holds that a steamer which engages to tow a vessel to a port undertakes to exercise reasonable skill and care in everything relating to the work, including the entrance to the port, and the lack of it either charges her with liability for the damage caused thereby. In reply to the allegation that the master of the Gawn was negligent in not cutting her line when he saw the danger, the court holds that the acts and failures of a master of a vessel to act after it has been put in extremis by the negligence of another, do not ordinarily constitute con- tributory negligence, even when erro- neous. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PART OWN- ERS OF VESSELS.--The mere fact that sev- eral persons are part owners of one 'ancy in common. fore, of some agreement between part 'TAe Marine REVIEW vessel does not, it is well settled, make such persons partners, nor the vessel partnership property. Partnership is not inferable from partl ownership. If a partnership exists between part owners, it exists by virtue of some agreement, expressed or implied, and does not arise, and cannot be implied, from the fact that several persons own a vessel by a ten- In the absence there- ownets by which they form themselves into a partnership, or of dealings by such owners, either between themselves or with third parties, from which a partner- ship may be implied, the relation between them is that of tenants in common and not of partners. However, there is no doubt that a vessel, like any other chat- tel, may be made a subject' of partner- ship property, or that part owners may, if they choose, assume the reiation of partners. 'There is nothing in the na- ture of a vessel which wotlld render it different in this respect than any other species of personal property, and if it be shown that it is owned and regarded by the parties as partnership property, . it will be so treated by the courts. The dictinction to be observed is the distinction. between the relation of the part owners to the vessel and to the business in which the vessel is employed. Part owners of a ship may be tenants in common of the vessel, and yet may em- ploy it in an adventure with reference to which they are partners. The vessel would not, in such case, become partner- ship property, while its earnings would undoubtedly be the result of a partner- ship venture, and properly regarded as partnership funds. The instances in which the vessel itself has been held- partnership property 'are few. If a partnership owns a moiety of a vessel, such share is of course partner- ship property, and may be disposed of as such by any partner. The mere fact that a vessel owned by several is em- ployed in an enterprise for the common profit of all the owners, or under. an agreement to own the ship' on shares, does not make the part owners partners in their ownership of the vessel. Even where such an arrangement amounts to _ a partnership among the owners of the vessel as to its employment, only the use of the boat and not the boat itself is brought into the partnership. While partners in the use of the vessel, they re- main part owners and tenants in com- mon of the vessel. A vessel bought by several persons does not become partnership property be- cause it was purchased as a speculation and with a view to its resale rather than to its employment in trade. among part owners with reference to the employment of the vessel. are, far more Partnership - frequent than its ownership. Their re- lation as tenatits in common of the ves- sel is entirely consistent with a part--- nership as to the business of the boat. In such a case their liabilities as to third persons incurred in the business employ- ing the vessel are partnership liabilities, and the earnings of the vessel are part- nership funds. Persons occupying toward each other the position of co-owners merely, do not as such stand in a relation of a very high fiduciary character. In a Massachusetts case an action was brought by one part owner against his co-owners for having conspired, after agreeing upon a sale of the vessel at a, large price, to induce the "plaintiff's agent, by a concealment of the fact that the vessel could be sold for such price, and by false and fraudulent representations to sell the plaintiff's quar- ter interest in the vessel at a price much below that which they had so agreed to sell for. The court said: "The Court are of the opinion that the tenants in com- mon of a vessel who are not engaged jointly in the employment of purchasing and building ships for sale, do not stand in such a relation of mutual trust and confidence toward each other in respect to the sale of such vessel that each is bound in his dealings' with the other to communicate all the information of facts within his knowledge which may affect the price or value. A different rule may prevail in respect to any contract for the use or employment of the common prop- erty, in which relation, perhaps, they may be deemed to place confidence mutually in each other. But, as in common cases of tenants in common of a vessel, they are independent of 'each other in all matters of purchase and sale, and may deal with each other in the same man- ner as owners of separate property. Each may act upon the knowledge which he has,. without communicating it." GRAIN RECEIPTS AT BUFFALO. Junius S. Smith, lake weighmaster, re- ports »the total receipts of grain and -flax at Buffalo during the season of 1906 _to have been as follows: BUSHELS. TONS. Wieat 220077 7. 55,811,000 1,674,330 Com (0 25,860,000 724,080 OBIS eos cae: 24,032,000 384,512 INYO0 Coa cea. 1,140,000 _ 31,920 Batley 3... 05 6.. 13,920,000 334,080 Plax Seed... . 4... 15.360,002 430,800 Ota ce 136,123,000 3,579,722 Of this total of 136,123,000 bu., the proportion shipped by the various ports are as follows: Chicago, 26,011,707; Mil- waukee, 2,287,067; Toledo, 122,000; Du- luth and Superior, 34,583,926; Washburn, 1,571,628; Gladstone, 2,935,320: Green Bay, 2,867,703; Manitowoc, 804,820; Fort William and Port Arthur, 7,213,120.