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 Ship Owners and Officers Specially Compiled for The Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman ° Attorney at Law N° THE case of: WaALRus, 261 Ped eral Reporter 676, it appeared that the original oral agreement under which certain fisherman were hired was not one to pay by the trip or voyage to the fishing banks and return, but to pay monthly wages and shares in the catches, however many trips were made each month, and the payments were to be made on the first of the month for the wages and shares in the catches of the preceding month, or as soon thereafter as the steamer came to port. After coming in on May 21, 1918, it be- came necessary for the crew of the steamer to sign shipping articles to comply with a government regulation which had become effective, and on May 25 the crew did so. On the afternoon of May 26, when the steamer was about to proceed on another fishing trip, the seamen in question, though requested to go on board, refused to do so. The court held that the articles signed were a continuation of the oral agreement, that the failure of the seamen to fur- ther serve constituted them deserters, and that the loss sustained by the steam- er from inability to go to sea for more than 36 hours should be charged against such seamen in proportion to the amount of wages severally due them, balance of wages, if any, to be paid to them. oe ee When under a charter party it is in- cumbent on the charterer to provide a berth for the ship at the port of dis- charge, and to discharge the cargo within a stated time, and delay in dis charging cargo is due to the charterer's breach of those obligations, a detention of the vessel due to such causes is made none the less chargeable against the charterer by the fact that the ship- Owner employs and pays the stevedore nominated by the charterer for dis- charging cargo, The fact that the master employs and pays. the stevedore nominated by the charterer does not stand in the way of delays in getting the vessel berthed and in discharging the cargo being chargeable against the charterer. Possible controversy as to What is a reasonable time for dischars- ing cargo is avoided by specifying the number of days allowed the charterer or discharging --Compania Anonima Maritima Union v. Strachan Shipping Co 261 Federal Reporter 57. * * x The case of Great Lakes Towing Co. v. Alva Steamship Co. 261 Federal Re- Porter 261, holds that a master of a tug, undertaking to tow a vessel in a ome port, is bound to know the proper and accustomed waterways and chan- nels, the depth of water and natural ormation of the bottom, whether in its natural state or as changed by pe*- manent excavations, and he is charge- * ship Co. able _with notice of recently changed conditions, either in channels or hat~ bors, if means of knowledge exist and are available to him. +k RS In the case of Great Lakes Steam- v. Geiger, 261 Federal Re- porter 275, it appeared that agents of a steamship and of a paper company 1a good faith made a computation that the steamship could carry a total of 18,000 tons of paper making 12 trips on the Great Lakes during the season, or 1500 tons: each trip. The parties, 19 making the contract, were equally igno- rant of the paper-carrying capacity of the vessel, and the actual capacity was found to be less than 600 tons. After making one trip. the boat owner re- fused to proceed further, and in the resulting litigation it was held (Ontario Paper Co. v. Neff, 261 Federal Reporter 353) that the parties should be re- lieved of their contract because of mutual mistake, the court saying that it was obvious that had actual capacity of the boat been known the contract never would have been entered into. co ok Ok Shipping articles for a voyage "from the port of Baltimore to such ports and places in any part of the world. via an American port, as the master may direct, and back to a final port of discharge in the United States, for a term of time not to exceed six calendar months,' were held, in the case of QuoguE, 261 Federal Reporter 414, to be "too indefinite and uncertain as to the voyage and services contracted for to bind seamen thereby; they fail to give the nature of the voyage unde~- taken, or so to describe the same, either by general terms or positive specifica: tions, as that those acting thereunder, or affected thereby, can know or be ad- vised of their contractual rights there- under with any reasonable degree ot rtainty." a y aie To moor a boat in an exposed _posi- tion, where she is liable to be subjected to damage from violent storm, and then to allow the storm to come on, in the face of indications both by storm warnings and by observable changes in the weather, and to do nothing to re- move the boat from its dangerous situa tion, places upon the person responsibie for the boat liability for damage, which can not be excused by showing that the storm was 2 little more_ severe than that which could be ridden out safely by the boat in this position. The risk from the violence of the storm is a risk assumed by the person responsible for the boat, if*that risk is one which ca' reasonably be expected, and is not pure- ly and simply an occurrence in the nature of ordinary risk at sea. Care of 275 a fleet of boats calls for care differing from that caused by the navigation of a single boat. Collecting the boats in a fleet increases the responsibility of the person handling the fleet, in situations where a single boat might safely ride the waves which are likely to resu': during a storm--Hercutes, 261 Federa: Reporter 529, x * ® When steamer and sailing vessel are on courses which cross, the duty is imposed upon the steamer to alter he- course, if this will avoid danger of collision, and, in order that this ruie may accomplish its purpose, the corre- lative duty is imposed upon the sailing vessel to hold her course. The only ~ justification for nonobservance of this rule is some danger of navigation, or some emergency, which forbids observ- ance.--SHAWMUT, 261 Federal Reporter 616. oe No attachment of a vessel was made, where the deputy sheriff pos- sessing the writ did not go aboard the vessel and never exercised any do- minion over her.--Leland v. Wescott, 260 Federal Reporter 343. * OK OK In the absence of insurance or guaranty of safe towage in the tow- age agreement, the tug is required to exercise ordinary care only in the prosecution of the voyage, and to pro- vide the essential equipment to that end.--Standard Transportation Co. y. Great Lakes Towing Co., 260 Federal Reporter 327. 'eS "The relation of master and seaman is peculiar," said the court in the case of John A. Roebling's Sons Co. of New York vy. Erickson, 261 Federal Reporter 986. Continuing, it was said: "A sea- man injured without willful misconduct is entitled to wages and expenses of maintenance and cure to the end of the voyage, whether himself guilty of negli- gence or not. His freedom from liabil- ity for his own negligence is not a question of remedy at all, but an es- sential part of the status of the sea- man and of the relation of master and seaman. Upon the foregoing general doctrine has been engrafted, purely out of tenderness for the seaman and upon no principle, an exception that, where his injuries are due to the failure of the owners to furnish and maintain a seaworthy vessel with proper appliances, the seaman may recover full indemnity. The negligence of the seaman in such case does not prevent his recovery, but may be taken into consideration * * * in determining the extent of indemnity which he should receive."