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 TIME charterer, which, during the charter period, desiring to use the vessel for a voyage pro- hibited without the owner’s consent, negotiated for such consent, meantime holding the vessel for such voyage, was held; in the case of New York & Cuba Mail S. S. Co. v. Salvesen, 298 Federal Reporter 625, not entitled to deduct from the charterer hire for the time so lost. * * An action fae negligent injury to a stevedore on a ship in a port of a foreign nation is governed by the law of that nation—SAMNANGER, 289 Fed- eral Reporter 260. * * A collision in New York harbor on a clear day, under conditions most favorable for navigation, between two steamships on crossing courses, held, on conflicting and unsatisfactory testi- mony, in the case of TENADORES, 298 Federal Reporter 740, due to faults of both vessels; the burdened vessel for signaling for the other to give way at a time when only instant acquiescence could avert collision, and the other for not instantly acting on such signal, which might have pre- vented the collision instead of which she gave a cross signal and con- tinued her course and speed. * * * The duty imposed by act. of March ‘8, 1899, § 15, on the owner to mark a wreck with a buoy a beacon during the day and a lighted lantern at night, cannot be delegated.—Elizabeth Co., Inc., v. Mesick & Mesick, Inc., 298 Federal Reporter 748. * * * Under charter of a _ vessel for “about” five years, terminating “about” Feb. 28, where the cargo was discharged Jan. 19, and it ap- peared that necessary repairs would not have delayed sailing beyond Feb. 1, and that another voyage could have been completed by March 11 to 15, overlap being shorter than underlap, the owner was not entitled to with- draw the vessel for Lloyds’ classifica- tion survey, which would’ prevent an- other voyage within the term. “Classi- fication does not make a vessel sea- worthy,” said the court in the case of NreGcus, 298 Federal Reporter 1749, “nor the absence of it make her un- seaworthy.” This is true, though fail- ure to submit to classification survey would result in the vessel’s classifica- tion being expunged, which could be restored by a subsequent satisfactory survey. ok * * If the cause of delay, beyond the chorter time, in loading a cargo of lumber, was the character of the By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law cargo, the charterer is liable for dem- murrage; if, however, a ship is in- capable of receiving cargo at the rate provided in the charter party with- out working overtime, the owner is not entitled to demmurrage for the delay, it was held in the case of Bahamas Cuban Co., Inc., v. Southern Export Co., 298 Federal Reporter 596, but should have employed additional men to assist in loading. * * * “When a person is injured in pass- ing over a ladder connecting a vessel with the shore, the admiralty has jurisdiction if he is injured, that is, wronged, before he is entirely free from the ship and has safely reached the shore. If he is passing from the shore to the ship, the admiralty has not jurisdiction until he has reached the ship, and is entirely separated from the shore.”—ATNA, 297 Federal Reporter 673. * ** * A number of interesting holdings with relation to lay days were made in the case of SKOMVAER, 297 Federal Reporter 746, among which are the following: (a) In computing lay days, Sundays and legal holidays are ex- cluded, and whole days only, and not fractions, are counted; (b) where the charter party defines the time when the lay days shall begin to run, the master has no authority to alter it; (c) under a charter party providing that lay days shall begin to run when master gives charterer notice, a no- tice given before the ship was ready for loading and had finished discharg- ing would have been ineffective; (d) the fact that loading is interfered with by storms does not prevent the running of lay days; (e) days on which a ship was being repaired were not lay days for purpose of deter- mining demurrage, the ship not being ready to receive the cargo on such days; (f) where charter party pro- vided that lay days should “count from the time the captain gives no-” tice,” and the captain in fact gave no- tice as soon as the ship was ready, the lay days began to run from the time of such notice, though the char- terer began to load the vessel several days prior thereto; (g) the mere fact that a vessel had failed to keep a winch in order as required by the charter party did not justify exclusion of days on which said winch was not in order from the number of lay days, in the absence of a showing that load- ing and discharging were interfered with thereby; and, (h) the time dur- ing which unloading of cargo was stopped to enable the owner to take on new cargo from a lighter as stiffen- ing for another voyage, with which 368 the charterer was not concerned, was not lay days for which charterer was liable for demurrage. * * * In the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, a shipowner absolutely warrants that his ship is seaworthy in all respects, and not merely that he has used due diligence to make her seaworthy, regardless of his knowledge or ignorance, of his care or negligence, it was held in the case of TURRET CROWN, 297 Federal Re- porter 766. It was further decided that the mere fact that a vessel en- counters heavy weather is no defense to claims for damages to cargo, if any defect or unseaworthy condition of the ship existed, and that where it be- came necessary for the safety of the ship, crew, and cargo to seek a port for repairs, there was no such “devia- tion” as would deprive the ship of the benefit of protective provisions of the bills of lading, “deviation” being a voluntary departure, without necessity or any reasonable cause, from the reg- ular or usual course of trade. * * * The insurer is subrogated to the rights of the shipper against the car- rier, in the absence of anything to the contrary contained in the bill of lad- ing; but, ordinarily, if the bill of lading gives the carrier the benefit of the shipper’s insurance, the in- surer is not subrogated. Where a policy is void by agreement if the insured makes a covenant to give the benefit of his insurance to the carrier, the insurers, it was said in the case of TURRET CROWN, 297 Federal Re- porter 766, can require the assured to sue the carrier first, and can de- cline to indemnify him ‘until the car- rier’s liability is determined. * * * A collision caused by the breaking loose of a moored vessel, by the break- ing of a sufficient mooring post, and where the vessel’s fasts were adequate in number and condition, in weather which was not extraordinary and in which no other similar accidents oc- curred, cannot be attributed to in- evitable accident, but raises a pre- sumption of fault on the part of the vessel.—_ HOLLANDIA, 297 Federal Re- porter 838. * * * An inguiry of the agent, ordering repairs for a steamship, as to its ownership, which was not answered, was held, in the case of CASTLEWOOD, 298 Federal Reporter 184, to be not the exercise of such reasonable dili- gence as to entitle the repairer to a lien, where, by the terms of the shin’s charter, the charterer was with- out authority to bind the vessel. ‘ 1 a r d 4