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

’ bends or other - descending vessel Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Ship Owners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law NE furnishing gasoline on or- ders of the captain, pursuant to an established course of busi- ness, under which the bills had been paid periodically by the owner, was entitled to a maritime lien under the act of June 23, 1910—Norsman, 271 Federal Reporter 15. eae ey War regulations cannot excuse viola- tion of statutory rules and regulations governing the length of tows as applied to commercial operations more than a year after the signing of the armistice.— BerkieEy, 271 Federal Reporter 35. kk OX The customs of the Mississippi river were held in the case of Joun D. RocKEFELLER, 272 Federal Reporter 6/7, to be subordinate to the statutory rules and to the pilot rules. However, when not inconsistent with those rules, they should be observed for promoting both dispatch and safety, and the violation of an established custom of this. sort is attributed to a vessel as a fault. Speaking to issues of the particular case, the court said that on the Mis- sissippi river the recognized applicable customs are as follows: ‘Where the navigation is not materially affected by special conditions, the should keep in the middle of the stream, and the ascending vessel should keep to her right side of the river. But, where there are bends, the ascending vessel has a right to run the points, and the descending vessel to run the bends; that is, the ascending vessel should take the course from the point on one side of the river to the nearest point on the other, to avoid the resistance of the current by keeping in the eddy near the bank, while the descending vessel should keep the main channel current, following the bends, thus using the force of the current.” As all vessels navigating the Mississippi river should observe these rules and customs, navigators have a right to expect their observance by each other. k ok Ox An employe of a subcontractor of an outfitting contractor cannot recover against a shipbuilding company for per- sonal injuries caused by slipping on a gangplank improperly fastened, where such gangplank was furnished by one or the other of the subcontractors and does not appear to be a part of the equipment of the ship or to have been furnished by it. Spiess v. Sommarstrom re Building Co., 272 Federal Reporter * * * Where a corporation hired a_ lighter to the owners of cotton at a specified price per day for the purpose of trans- porting such cotton at said owners’ own charges, such corporation, it was - held in Bashinsky Cotton Co. v. Sunset Lighterage Corp., 272 Federal Reporter 120, was not responsible for the cotton as a carrier. k * Ox The case of Esrom, 272 Federal Re- porter 266, sets out a number of the rules governing the relationship between ship and cargo, among which are the following : x “The ship may be held liable in rem for damages to the cargo, even though no bill of lading or contract of af- freightment was signed by the master. A shipowner may be held to the common- , law liability. “The obligation between the ship and cargo is mutual and reciprocal, and does not attach until the cargo is on board or in the custody of the master. The lien of the vessel upon the goods and of the goods upon the vessel attaches from the moment the goods are laden on board, and not from the time only when the ship breaks ground. “The obligations which are created one to the other, then, are that the ship is bound not to injure the merchandise by improper ‘stowage or rough handling, and, if she does, then there will be a liability m rem, even before the voyage is begun. If the voyage is begun, the vessel must carry the goods to destination on the terms agreed by the shipper with the charterer; for when the vessel starts upon the voyage, by implication, there is a ratification and adoption by the ship of the charterer’s contract with the shipper. Then the shipper is deprived of an opportunity to retake his goods, and the goods are in the sole possession and control of the ship. So, too, the ship is’ then bound by the charterer’s bill of lading, under which the freight is prepaid, and cannot collect further freight at destination. Before sailing, the vessel owner is protected by his opportunity to refuse to carry the goods on the terms agreed by the charterer be- fore the voyage is commenced. “Delay (in sailing) alone does not necessarily establish liability for dam- age. Unless the vessel has reasonable ground to believe that the delay will damage the cargo, liability will not be imposed.” et “A rule of caution laid down by the courts—to be applied, however, with great discrimination—is that, where one vessel sees, or should see, that another is disregarding the required precautions against collision, and fails to take reason- able: precaution herself, in view of the remissness of the other vessel, both will be “held at fault. *) * *- When’ itis evident to a navigator of a vessel that his signals are misunderstood, he should immediately stop and reverse until his 142 -signals are understood, and he’ will be held at fault for failure to do so.’— Joun D. Rockeretier, 272 Federal Re- porter 67. re ce Where the owner of a cargo of coffee in bags applied to a firm of brokers for barges on which to discharge a part of the cargo, there was an implied warranty by the brokers not disclosing that they were acting as such, that each of the barges furnished was seaworthy and fit to sustain and carry the weight usual for boats of her size and kind. Under the oral demise of a barge for a specified use, there is an implied warranty that she is seaworthy and fit for the intended use except where the defect is patent and the charterer has had an opportunity to examine the vessel. “Carriage,” said the court in the case of JUNGSHOVED, 272 Federal Reporter 122, “includes ability to lift a cargo and hold it afloat, and does not necessarily involve any trans- lation of the vessel from one place to another.” ey ee ee Under title 53, Section 4612, United States revised statutes, as amended by act of Dec. 21, 1898, c. 28, section 23, “scows” and “pile drivers” are ‘“‘vessels,” and the foreman in charge of the opera- tion of a scow on which was placed a pile driver was a seaman, and, it was de- cided in the case of George Leary Con- struction Co. v. Matson, 272 Federal Re- porter 461, under Act of March 15, 1915, c. 153, section 20, known as the “seamen’s act,” in an action by a subordinate em- ploye for a personal injury the foreman is not a fellow servant of such employer. but is the representative of the owner of the vessel. For an injury due to acci- dent, or to the mere negligence of the “master of the vessel in giving orders, even if he be regarded as the representative of the owner, a seaman has been held not to be entitled to recover indemnity, but only for maintenance and cure. and it may be that: this rule is unaffected by section 20 of the seamen’s act. But since under the statute the master of the vessel, or seaman in command, _ is not a fellow servant of those under his authority, his selection and supply of the appliance and ~~ appurtenances used for the service on the ship under his direction is the selection and supply of the owner, and for injury to a seaman due to negligence in such. selection and supply the owner is liable for full in- demnity for the injury. Gee aes A bill of lading is not a negotiable in- strument, or a piece of commercial paper, and the doctrines favoring an in- nocent holder for value do not wholly apply—Sr. Jouns, N. F., 272 Federal Reporter 673.