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

pee duty of making a ship sea- worthy is nondelegable; hence a steamship company could not suc- cessfully defend a libel by a shipper for damage to cargo on the ground that it had made a contract with a shipbuilding corporation to make re- pairs unless it could also show that the corporation had performed its contract.—Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Ltd., v. Joseph Gutradt Co., 10 F. (2d) 769. N HOLDING that private wharf owners offering their wharves to the public generally are not entitled to recover wharfage at a rate greater than the statutory rate, the court, in the case of M. L. C. No. 10, 10 F. (2d) 699, said: “If a wharf owner offers his conveniences to the public, if for a uniform price of his own fixing he offers service to all, he is in effect a public servant, and his wharf public. He cannot have his cake and eat it, nor behave like a public wharfinger, yet remain immune from that regu- lation which admittedly affects owners of public wharves, and which we hold affects all wharves offered to the public.” Eo * Ed ECITAL in bill of lading for cod- fish, “In apparent good order and condition,” does not necessarily mean that the cases contained sound codfish properly cured for a sea voyage in the summer, it was held in the case Of MUSKEGON. 10 F. (2d), 817. It was further decided that a ship sail- ing with cargo, after her master had filed her manifest, without issuing other bills of lading, ratified and adopted bills signed by the company for which the charterers had con- tracted to transport goods. * * HEN their ship is in port, sea- men cannot be held in involun- tary servitude.—Elman v. Moller, 11 FF (2d:) 5b. * * HE managing officer of the owner of a vessel, on being informed by radio that a tug was assisting the vessel, not having disavowed the serv- ices, but having allowed the tug to continue, the vessel was liable for tow- age, said the court in the case of TRINIDAD, 10 F. (2d) 849, notwith- standing a previous notice that the tug’s services would not be required. * * * HE general rule***,” it was stated in the case of CAPITAINE FAauRE, 10 F. (2d) 950, “is that the master of a ship has no power to bind the owners of the ship by a false bill of lading.* ** if a master signs a bill of lading which is false, 28 Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law and the goods at no time have been re- ceived on board, the ship is not bound. The bill of lading is void in such cases, even in the hands of a bona fide hold- er for value.” It was also held that the master cannot bind the ship by sighing a second bill of lading for goods on board, for which he has al- ready signed one bill. * ES * HE fact of seaworthiness of ships for the service undertaken is pre- sumed in the absence of a showing to the contrary, and when _ shipowners contemplate the release of their ves- sels from liability, as effects the im- plied warranty of seaworthiness for the service undertaken, they should do so in plain and unequivocal terms.— Dempsey v. Downing, 11 F. (2d) 15. Bo * * SHIP and its owner were charge- able with a duty to a night watchman to use proper diligence to provide a safe place for him to do his work, and were liable to indemni- fy him for injuries received in con- sequence of a failure to supply and keep in order. proper appliances ap- purtenant to the ship, the lack of which rendered unsafe the watchman’s place of work.—VALDARNO, 11 F. (2d) 35. * * * EGLIGENCE of a carrier is not actionable unless it caused the damage. If it did, it is actionable and the carrier is not relieved from lia- bility for its wrongful act. If, how- ever, declared the court in THomas P. BEAL, 11 F. (2d) 49, the shipper caused the damage by supplying de- fective containers, the carrier, though negligent, is not liable for the conse- quences of the shipper’s act. Liability therefore must be determined accord- ing as the damage is traced to the action of one party or the other party and found to be the result of the negligence of one or the other. * * * HE obligations imposed upon those rendering services and furnishing supplies to ships to exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the limitation of authority, if any, of those in posses- sion of the same, implies that had in- quiry been made, information would have been afforded of such limitation, and it does not contemplate, although there may be some circumstances that might put them on inquiry, that they should be obliged to conduct an investi- gation into facts often complicated, sometimes requiring judicial determi- nation for their final determination, and to decide at his peril whether a lien was possible or not.—Virginia Shipbuilding Corp. v. United States MARINE REVIEW—July, 1927 Shipping Board Emergency Fleet | Corp: 11.F. (2d) 166. * * * N ORDER that governmental re- straint (in this case, fuel admin- istrator’s order) shall excuse perform- ance of his contract on the part of the charterer, the restraint must have been the proximate or distinguished from the remote cause of such fail- urée.—Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Solleveld, Van Der Meer & T. H. Van Hattum’s Stoonvaart Maatschap- pu, Li Ff. (2d) ' 80. * * * HE owner of a vessel cannot be held liable because the charterer, for his own purposes, made misrepre- sentations as to its authority.—GuL DJEMAL, 11 F. (2d) 153, * * * HERE the charterers of a ves- sel advertised for freight, which was received and receipted for by a forwarding company, employed by the charterer, and stored on deck, but never placed in the vessel’s hold, though bills of lading were issued by the charterer, there was no actual delivery to the vessel; and no lien ex- ists against a vessel for loss of mer- chandise not delivered to it—ARABIEN, UP 2a y 204. * * * NE whose ship is wrongfully in- jured. as against the wrongdoer, may liquidate his damages by expert testimony alone. and never repair at all, and the making of temporary re- pairs does not preclude a libelant from recovering cost of permanent repairs. —Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Down- er Towing Corp. 11 F. (2d) 466. * Ba * T DID not constitute negligence or improper towage to place a scow where she would lie on an even and soft mud bottom, free from rocks or bars, when the tide was at ebb. The tug’s duty was to take the scow as near to the dock as she safely could. and there was no obligation to stand by.—Schoonmaker-Conners Co. Ine., v. New York Tidewater Gravel Corp., 11 FB. (2d) 470. | a E REJECT,” said the court in the case of Scottish Navigation Co. Ltd., v. Munson Steamship line, 10 F. (2d) 708, “the idea that, because the charter party limited the required capacity of the ship’s gear to three tons, there was a corresponding limita- tion on the mast strength. Such a mast literally would not hold itself up in heavy weather. The owner was bound to furnish a mast reasonably strong for the contemplated ship’s pur- poses.”