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 HE issue in the case of Frederick Leyland & Co. Ltd., vs. Horn- blower, 256 Federal Reporter 289, was whether the provision of a bill of . lading, “not accountable for any goods of whatever description beyond the sum of 20 pounds per package, unless the value be herein expressed and _ extra freight as may be agreed on paid,” was unreasonable and invalid. The court held in the negative and quoted from an earlier decision in which it was_ said, “Tt is competent for a steamship com- pany as a carrier of goods to limit its liability to a certain amount in case of loss, even as against its own negligence, where the valuation is the basis on which freight is charged, and this fact was fully known to the shipper.” The bill of lading further provided, “the ship- owner is not liable for any loss, detri- ment, or damage to any goods capable of being covered by insurance, and if liable is to have the benefit of any in- -surance effected upen the goods,” and the court held with relation thereto that the shipper who had insured his shipment in a named sum, and “while on board steamers,” could not recover for damage in unloading the shipment, aud, therefore, no insurance against loss by such damage was effected, so that an arrangement by which the insurer advanced a sum to the shipper on a borrowed and loan receipt did not in- ure to the benefit of defendant com- pany. Rie sk Any intended deviation from a voyage described in a policy of marine insur- ance, to be accomplisked thereafter, would not avoid the insurance, accord- ing to North British & Mercantile In- surance Co; ws” H. Baars -& Co, 255 Federal Reporter 625. An abandon- ment of the voyage insured would, however, avoid the policy, since it was not permitted by the policy, and_ this would be true, though the loss oc- curred while the vessel was still on the common course and before it had reached the point of divergence. ee Upon a ship’s. arrival in port, the master is entitled to a reasonable time to prepare himself to comply with any demands made upon him for half-wages under section 4 of the seamen’s act, and where seamen accepted store orders of- fered by a master and used them in part, the master not having money on hand and the banks being closed, the master was authorized to assume that the men would not insist on further payment, at least until hc was_ notified to the contrary by a sccond demand, and he was entitled to a reasonable time after such second demand to get the money with which te comply wit) -even in By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law’ it. The men’s requirement of instant compliance with their demand was un- reasonable, and it was held in the case of Pinna, 255 Federal Reporter 642, that the men by leaving the ship with- out the master’s consent, to enforce tueir claim for full wages, became de- serters and forfeited their wages. “The purpose of section 4 of the seamen’s act,’ the court said, “was to furnish a remedy by which sailors could procure a proportion of their earned wages at cach port, and not to provide a method by which the shipping articles could be terminated at the will of the sea- men, because of a failure on the mas- ter’s part to instantly comply with a demand by the seamen, which was made with the purpose of procuring the right to demand a discharge from the shipping articles, rather than the pay- ment of half of the earned wages under them.” Pe See Where the charterer of a steamship furnishes the whole cargo, and loads and discharges her with its own steve- dores, the charter party. reciting that bills. of lading are to be signed with- out prejudice to the charter, but not less than charter rates, the steamship is not a common carrier, and in an action for damage to the cargo the burden is cast on the charterer to prove negligence affirmatively—Lyra, 255 Fed- eral Reporter 667. eee Desertion, in the sense of the mari- time law, is defined in Iratier, 257 Fed- eral Reporter 712, as a quitting of the ship and her service, not only with- out leave and against the duty of the party, but with an intent not again to return to the ship’s duty. The of- fense of desertion in the mercantile ma- rine was not abolished by the seaman’s act of 1915, and a deserter forfeits all wages due him. “While it is true,” said the court, “that arrest for desertion, the bodily return of the deserter to his ship, and generally the holding of a seaman to his shipping contract by physical force, are things of the past, respect of foreign vessels so far as the United States is concerned, desertion is still an offense on Ameri- can vessels, entailing (inter alia) for- feiture of ‘all or any part of the wages or emoluments which the deserter has then earned.” eo oa The word “vessel,” as used in sec- tions 4283-4289 of the United States revised statutes, which limit the liabil- ity of vessel owners for collisions oc- curring without their privity or knowl- edge, was held in the case of Eastern Steamship Corp. vs. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 256 Federal Reporter 497, to include a drillboat, described as a navigable structure having a permanent 558 cargo, viz., its engines, boiler, drilling machinery, etc., which it transported from place to place for the purpose of removing dredges in navigable waters and as an aid to commerce and _ navi- gation. In reaching this conclusion, the court considered a number of adjudi- cated cases in which the word “vessel” was variously held to include a barge without motive power used to transport excursion parties, a mud scow, a scow originally constructed and used. for car- rying stone and later provided with a derrick and used for raising stone, a scow carrying a pile driver permanently attached thereto, and a pumpboat used for pumping out coal barges. * * * A seaman on a British ship who, while his ship was in a United States port and before making any demand for wages, refused to do any more work and left the ship, with the intention of having her finally sail without him, thereby became a deserter, and under the Merchants Shipping act of 1894 of the United Kingdom he forfeited all his effects and wages.—WELLs City, 256 Federal Reporter 689. ae gee Section 9 of the shipping board act provides that any vessel purchased, chartered, or leased from the board may be registered or enrolled as a ves- sel of the United States and entitled to the benefits and_ privileges apper- taining thereto, and, further, that every vessel purchased, etc., from the board shall, unless otherwise authorized by the board be operated only under such registry or enrollment and license, and that such vessels while employed solely as merchant vessels shall be subject to all laws and liabilities governing mer- chant vessels, whether the United States be interested therein as owner, in whole or in part, or hold any mortgage, lien, or other interest therein. The business situation which congress had in mind m passing this section, it was said in x A. Fracc, 256 Federal Reporter 852, was one in which vessels would be acquired by the board, and operated under charter or lease from it, or sold by it outright, and the basic inten- tion was that merchant vessels should gain no exemption from the ordinary legal liabilities because of any interest which the United States might have in them. The court then held that a ves- sel requisitioned by and registered in the name of the United States, while proceeding light from the Great Lakes to New York, by way of Montreal, for entering upon the public service of the United States,” was not. eim- ployed solely as a merchant vessel and was, therefore, entitled to claim ex- emption as a government vessel for Injuries received by a seaman. 3 aaa