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

Late Decisions in Maritime Law Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers Specially Compiled for Marine. Review ARGO delivered at ship side in ac- cordance with contract for de- livery to vessel as fast as she could receive it, and which had been re- ceipted for by the master, was at the carrier’s risk.—Ouca S., 10 F. (2d) 801. * * * T IS a well-established rule that a general agent is not entitled to a lien for supplies furnished as he is presumed to rely upon the credit of the owner; and a general agent may not avoid the rule by proceeding’ through one of its subagents.— AMERICAN STarR, 11 F. (2d) 479. * * * EAMEN have no lien for wages against a privately owned vessel, owned and operated by a foreign gov- ernment when liability was incurred, it was held in the case of NEVADA, 11 F. (2d) 511. “The maritime law pass- es by the thing,” it was said, “and places the liability on the sovereign owner alone, and not upon the mari- time instrumentalities of its sover- eign.” * * * HERE decay of fish was due to delay in accepting and forward- ing them, a claim based on that de- lay is not governed by a provision in the bill of lading that no claim will be admitted, unless made before the goods are removed; said provision re- lates to the carriage of the goods on the voyage, and does not affect a con- tract obligation incurred before the bill of lading was signed.—R. B. Boak & Co. v. United States Shipping Board ey Fleet Corp. 11 F. (2d) * * * Rv of board of supervising in- spectors, requiring presence of quartermaster in pilot house, is maintained to cover any emergency caused by sudden disability of the pi- lot, and does not excuse the absence of a lookout.—ScANDINAVIA, 11 F (2d) 542, * * * O RECOVERY can be had of a tug for injury to its tow simply because of towing through ice, which was soft and had been broken up by tugs going in and out, but negligence on the part of the tug must be shown. —BEaAR, 11 F. (2d) 607. * * TUG using as a towline a barge’s hawser, the work for which it was being used necessarily making the ex- terior dirty and discolored, did not have the burden of examining each foot thereof, not merely with the eye, but by careful separation of the strands, to discover a “burnt” or rot- 26 By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law ten spot.—Mary J. KENNEDY, 11 F. (2d) 6238. oe es. BROKER does not have a lien upon a ship for services rendered in causing cancellation of fines as- sessed against the crew and ship for violation of Federal laws, where he advanced necessary credit to pay pen- alties, if they were not canceled.— LA MERCED, 11 F. 2d) 672. * * HERE weather encountered by a vessel, if not actually anticipat- ed, was of a kind reasonably to have been expected on a transpacific voy- age, it was not a-peril of the sea, within a provision of the bill of lading exempting the vessel from liability for damage to cargo caused by perils of the sea.—ARAKAN, 11 F. (2d) 791. * % S RESPECTS third parties, the owners of a ship are responsibl on the respondent superior principle for the negligence of a navigator, who with their consent is in charge of the ship, notwithstanding that the naviga- tor is at the time in the general em- ploy of another; as respects two em- ployers, however, each employer is responsible for the negligent acts of his employees in the general scope of their employment.—AMERICAN DREDG- ING Co. v. Vacuum O1L Co., 11 F. (2d) 884. * * * EAMEN who, after vessel was forced into port before reaching destination, and on learning that the master was short of funds, demanded half pay, and who, on being told that the ship’s agent had been telegraphed to send money, and that the master would see what he could do in the morning, abandoned the ship, were not entitled to full pay to date of re- fusal and double pay to date of pay- ment, their conduct being unreason- able and arbitrary.—NANcy, 11 F. (2d) 318. * ok HE law giving wages to a sea- man falling sick while in the ser- vice of the ship is founded on general maritime law, and such wages must be given as long as the voyage con- tinues. Under this law, the court, in the case of JUNEAU, 11 F. (2d) 4380, decided that a seaman was entitled to wages while in hospital, upon its being shown that the voyage had not ended when he left hospital. * * ok HE question in collision cases is always: What money will reason- ably but fully compensate libelant for the damages he proves? In nine cases out of ten, the repair bill represents a large item in reckoning compensa- MARINE REVIEW—August, 1927 tion, and the party injured and pay- ing the bill is limited to what he paid for complete repairs, even when he took his boat to a yard much cheaper than one he would have been justified in patronizing; but never is he called on in limine to prove his repair bill item by item, as is the shipwright, who sues on a _ contract.—PENNSYL- VANIA RAILROAD Co. v. DOWNER Tow- ING CorP., 11 F. (2d) 466. * * * FERRY owner, using a landing un- der a lease from a city, is estopped to deny the city’s title thereto. MCNEELY v. NATCHEZ, 12 F. (2d) 3, * * PPOVISION in a ship’s bill of lad- ing exempting carrier from liabil- ity for damage to cargo until actually loaded for trasportation and after leaving vessel’s tackles, and for dam- ages by heating, or effects of climate, decay, putrefaction, ferment, rust, sweat, or by nature of goods or cargo, did not exempt the carrier from liabil- ity for damage to flour caused by working of weevil, and due to an un- warranted delay between time it was received and time it was loaded in vessel. — UNITED STATES SHIPPING BoARD EMERGENCY: FLEET CORP. V. Texas Srar Minus, 12 .F.. (2d). 9. ok * * "THE duty of a ship to furnish a safe winch is correlative and equal with the duty of a stevedore to do the same thing, and neither may es- cape the consequences of an act of causative fault resulting in personal injuries to one at work to which he had been assigned.—BUZYNSKI v. LUCK- ENBACH STEAMSHIP Co., 12 F. (2d) ha ae * 1K A TUG cannot, by contract with its tow, exempt itself from liability for negligence, but such a_ contract, though void, it was held in the case of Sea Lion, 12 F. (2d) 124, may be material in determining the tug’s neg- ligence in losing its tow, as showing what the parties contemplated. It was further held that a tug cannot be held negligent for undertaking to do what circumstances and nature of contract with tow show was within contemplation of parties. * * * A] ESSee licensed for coasting trade is subject to seizure, on taking in- toxicating liquors from a foreign ship at sea for purpose of importing them without permit or manifest, in viola- tion of the custom laws, and is sub- ject to forfeiture and sale; such vessel can be apprehended on high seas by officers acting within scope of their authority—Rosatie M., 12 F. (2d) 970.