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 By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law Ae of affreightment al- lowing abandonment of voyage when war or hostilities, actual or threatened, make it unsafe or impru- dent to sail, is not void for want of mutuality, said the court in the ease of Churchill Line v. Gulf Naval Stores Supply Co., 12 F. (2d) 181; such provision not making service depends on the master’s or the owner’s independent will. a 3 ok REW of a vessel entering port for repairs, not to load or un- load cargo, were not entitled to make demand for half wages, and such crew, improperly abandoning the ves- sel on refusal of demand for half wages, were deserters and not entitled to recover wages, nor could they re- cover on the unpleaded ground that fear of personal violence at hands of striking seamen excused their abandonment of the ship and _ per- formance of contract.— UNITED STATES v. SMITH, 12 F. (2d) 265. * * * ARROW channel rule which re- quires traveling on the starboard side of the fairway “when it is safe and practicable,’ was violated by a tug attempting to make starboard to star- board passing in narrow channel, mere- ly because more convenient, in view of the strength and weight of its tow, not- withstanding it followed a custom in so doing.—LEHIGH CoAL & NAVIGA- TION Co. v. COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 12 F. (2d) 337. * * ae SHIPPER who gave no_ notice of damage to goods shipped for 70 days was not in position to urge unreasonableness of provision of bill of lading requiring that demand for damage be made within 10 days after delivery. W. R. GRACE & Co. v. PAN- AMA Raru~rRoAD Co., 12 F. (2d) 338. * * * | aes END” statute of New York, declaring that vessels lying at the exterior end of wharves of the North or East river, do so at their own risk of injury from vessels entering or leaving any adjacent dock or pier, does not govern right of recovery of damages in admiralty, but, being a regulation within the power of the state, violation of it is a fault, which, if it contributes to a collision, results in liability—-New York —CHARENTE STEAMSHIP Co. v. UNITED States, 12 F. (2d) 348. * * * N IN-COMING steamship, which, instead of anchoring at a safe distance, stops within dangerous prox- imity to a quarantine station wharf, and which drifted or was driven by the wind against the wharf and in- jured the same, was negligent, and was not relieved from liability on the ground of inevitable accident. That the ship followed the usual, but negligent, custom is no defense, nor is the fact that the ship was in charge of a compulsory pilot, where it was with acquiescence of the master, whose authority remained paramount. —CHARENTE STEAMSHIP Co. v. UNITED STATES: 12° 3": (2d) 412. Nt Since WARD for personal injuries to a foreign seaman sustained in an American port should include an al- lowance for pain and suffering and permanent disability. An award of $400 for a painful injury, resulting in 10 per cent permanent disability to a seaman’s arm and requiring two operations, was held inadequate in the case of HEREDIA v. DAVIES, 12 F. (2d) 500, and was increased to $1000. * * 2k HE court held in the case of United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Rosenberg Bros. & Co;,: 32 8... (ad): 721, 5 that as to a shipment from San Francisco to Cardiff, it was a deviation to pro- ceed first to Hamburg, 750: miles be- yond, notwithstanding liberty clause in bill of lading to touch at any ports in any rotation or order in or out of the customary route; this not being within the scope of the voyage. * * * NDER charter party providing for 72-hour period before lav days began to run, Saturday afternoon, Sunday, and Armistice day will not be added to the 72-hour period in determining dispatch money, where the charter party contained no ex- ceptions; where Sundays and legal holidays are excepted from loading period, lay days commence at mid- night when the 72 hours expired on Sunday. Lay days for unloading cargo on ship arriving at night do not commence to run until 7 o’clock on the morning following, at port legally closed until 7 a. m., and non- working day declared by master of port should be excepted from running of lay days.—SouTH AMERICAN METAL Co.’ v. Ksock, 12 F.. (2d) 662, k ok Eo ENERAL maritime law does not give lien to broker for services in shipping a crew for a vessel in her home port, nor does such service come under the head of “necessaries” in the ship mortgage act of 1920.— PRINCESS, 12 F. (2d) 508. oe OVERNMENT had an_unques- tioned right to requisition ship- ping. to use it in whole or in part for its direct war purposes, and to con- MARINE REVIEW—October, 1927 duct directly or indirectly through such agencies or instrumentalities as it chose, commercial trans- portation, and a local statute of Porto Rico or of any state cannot stand as a bar to the effective exercise of the war power. In taking over and operating ships in its sover- eign capacity as a war measure, it cannot be held to have waived sover- eign right or privilege, unless so pro- vided in congressional enactments.— UNITED STATES v. Porto Rico FRUIT UNION, 12 F. (2d) 961. 2 * Es NDER the international regula- tions for preventing collisions at sea a vessel proceeding on a curved course was not required to change her course for crossing a vessel on her port, and it was the duty of such other vessel to take notice of the character of her course. The “course” of a vessel proceeding on a curved course, the case of Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate Steam Navigation Co. is the actual course, and not compass direction, of the heading of the vessel at the time the other is sighted. v. United States, 12 F. (2d) 128, holds, * aK * WNER and charterers of vessel, use of which was lost because of a repairer’s negligence, are entitled to recover the market value of the use for the period of delay.—Flint v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 13 F. (2d) 3. * ae He HERE charterers cancel the charter party, the shipowner’s measure of damages is the difference between what the shipowner would have made under the canceled charter and what he earned under a substi- tute charter.—United Transportation Co. v. Berwind-White Coal-Mining Coi; 18. WS ad 282, ae oe Bo HIPOWNER, neglecting to shift old bunker ccal, was liable for fire and water damage to cargo, by spon- taneous combustion, and not entitled to limit liability—Arkell & Douglas, Ine., v. United States, 138 IF’. (2d) 555. * Ok NDER a charter explicitly guar- anteeing that vessel would sail on or before a certain date, the owner of the vessel is liable for delay, al- though failure of the vessel to sail as agreed was not the fault of either the owner or the charterer, it was held in Dexter & Carpenter Co., Inc. v. United States, 18 F (2d) 498. It was also held that the right to cancel such charter would be implied on failure to sail as agreed, where time was of the essence, though the vessel was ready to sail shortly after. 35