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

Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine Review Late Decisions in Maritime Law T WAS brought out in the case of Hines v. Butler, 278 Federal Reporter 877, that the steamship VikuiNIA owned by a railway company taken over by the government during the war, formed one of a line which plied on regular trips between Baltimore and Norfolk, carrying both passengers and freight. The boat left Baltimore one night for Norfolk, and left Norfolk the next night to return to Baltimore. Fire which broke out in May, 1919, caused her destruction, as it did of most oi her freight. Some of the passengers were drowned and others seriously hurt. Suit in admiralty to limit liability was brought. The court held that the steam- ship was practically a ferryboat, and that necessarily all of the regulations in- tended for the protection of human life and human property would app!y more strongly to a boat of this character than to a boat whose stay in port is only as may be after the termination of a voyage of more or less duration. The court said: “It was not the case of a sailing vessel or ocean steamship, which leaves for a voyage of more or less duration, and as to which the owner can not do more than see, at the time it leaves the wharf for its voyage of un- certrin duration, that it is staunch, sea- worthy. and proner'y equipped. In the case of the VirGcINrIA, as in the case of any other ferryboat over waters of some lenw’h, the vessel was at a known point. It was in port every day. being absent only at night. If Baltimore was the home port, it was in Baltimore every other dey: hut. as Norfolk was equally a port in which refitting or inspection can be done, it was practically in a_ place where it could be doi'y wnder insnection of the owner. * * * The position of a ferrvhoat daily carving numbers of passengers is quite different from that of a mere cargo steamer, going to dif- ferent ports as business may call it.” ree ee Tt annreared in the cxse of RosEMARY, 277 Federal Reporter 674. that the terms of the charter party involved showed that the natties contemplated that the vessel, wkich was chartered to carry a cargo of mahareny loves from Secondee or Axim, Africa, to Mob‘le or Gulfport, was before entering unon that service. to carry cary (to: Duvhan. ‘chorterss.. fiurnishin= “said vessel a fulland comp'ete cargo of mahogany logs under and on deck.” The’ chorter narty fixed ro definite time for the vessel to. be at Secondee or Axim ree-dv to receive the caren. and the charterer failed to furnish sufficient lovs to fill the hold and deck space available fer eoscevine Inosg, The enurt held that the shipowner’s obligation as to. ar- rival ready to receive cargo was complied with if there was no delav 4 By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law which was unreasonable under the cir- cumstances, and that the master was en- titled to recover for dead freight, which is the compensation due when the charterer fails to ship the full amount of cargo stipulated for unless in. some way the master has been barred from enforcing that claim. In this case, it further appeared that the charter party allowed the charter- er 15 days for loading, and that w thout any fault on the part of the vessel or its owner, 25 days were consumed in deliver- ing and loading the logs furnished, which as said above, did not constitute a full cargo. The court held in this regard, that the charterer was not entitled to credit on the dead freight for the time saved by the vessel in consequence of the full and complete cargo not being furnished. x * x A vessel which had started in the rear of a large convoy, and which at the time of collision had come nearly. if not quite, abeam of the vessel ahead, was an overtaking vessel, it was de- c‘ded in the case of War PotntTer, 277 Federal Reporter 718, and as such was bound to observe the course of the other vessel and keep away from it; to this end her lookout was under the duty to keep such other vessel under vigilant observation for every appear- ance of unsafe approach. This duty was the more’ imperative in this instance, because the vessels in the convoy were sailing without lights and_ necessarily near each other. * x * “Seamen * * have constituted from early times a peculiar class.. The un- usual protection extended to. them is reflected in the familiar saving that they are wards of the admira'ty.”— Cricket Steamship Co. v. Parry, 263 Federal Reporter 523. x x Where a charter party contained a provision requiring the’ charterer to provide and pay for coal and other things which were paid for by a shin- ping compary. svch company, it was decided in the case of Pensacola Ship- ring Co. v. Un'ted States Shinning Board Emereencv Fleet Corp., 277 Fed- eral Reporter 889, did not acanire lien on the shin or a claim against its awner, wnder section 3 of act June 23, 1910, where such comnany. not knowi1¢ of the terms of the charter party. made no effort to obtain information as to its terms, although in communi- cation w'th the charterer several weeks before the vessel’s arrival at the port; nor did such pavment give the shipping comnany by subroeation the rieht to enforce the liens in favor of the ac- tual furnishers who were not shown to have been chargeable with notice of 427 ‘as the vessel and the terms of the charter party—so far its Owner were con- cerned, the shipping company was a mere volunteer in making the payment, and the equitable right of subrogation does not exist in favor of a mere volun- teer, who pays a debt of one. person to another. x ok € “A vessel navigating in a fog must go no faster than will permit her to stop within the distance she can see ahead.’”—-Haven, 277 Federal Reporter 957. ee The limited liability act was enacted for the benefit of the shipping interest and should be construed in a spirit of fairness, with a view of giving the ship- owner the full’ benefit of the immunities intended. As so construed, insurance col- lected by a shipowner for loss oi a vessel when the event occurred for which he seeks limitation of liability, is not part of his interest in. the. vessel, and is not required to be sur-. rendered. The privi‘y or knowledge of a corporation shipowner, which _ will preclude its limitation of liability, must be that of the managing officers of the corporation, and where the owner in good faith appoints a competent agent to equip, man, or maintain a vessel or her machinery. acts of omission or commission of the agent, not participated in personally by the owner, do not con- stitu‘e privity or knowledge, within the meaning of the statute. Privity or knowledge.. as used in the statute, im- ports ac‘ual knowledge causing or con- tributing to the loss, or knowledve or means of knowledge of a cond'tion of things likely to produce or contribute to the loss without adopting proper means to prevent it—PrINcEss SopHIA, 278 Federal Reporter 180. * * x The lien which attaches to a_ vessel for collision or breach of obligation is not enforceable against the vessel so long as it is in the possession and service of the government: however, upon the cessation of such possession, the lien is enforceable and process may he issued. A new owner, it was_ held in the case of PocAHontas, 278 Fed- eral Reporter 214, must take the vessel subject to whatever lien exists against, her. and he must, therefore, make in- auiry as to the past of the -hip and the liens thereon. kk OX : Tugs are held to a high degree of diligence in endeavoring to save a tow to which they are attached, or which has gone adrift. and the tow can not be abandoned until all reasonable efforts for its preservation have been extanst- ed.—Betty, 278 Federal Reporter 220