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 NDER the rule of reasonable care and prudence, a tug towing a barge not built or shaped to with- stand heavy seagoing buffeting could not take large chances as to bad weather in coming up the Atlantic coast in December, it was held in the case of Mercury, 2 F. (2d) 325; and it is a duty of navigators of a tug with a barge in tow to look for storm signal flags, particularly where the barometer has for some time been dropping rapidly. ee ae. FURNISHER of coal, it was de- cided in the case of Carr v. George E. Warren Corp., 2 F. (2d) 333, which was actually purchased on the credit of certain steamers, billed to them, and used by them, had a lien for the same, though it was all delivered on a pier where they cus- tomarily coaled; one who furnished tubes for repair of a steamer on her credit, which was delivered to and used by her, though they were billed to the owner, was also entitled to a lien. ea ee }* WAS held in the case of PEER- LESS, 2 F. (2d) 395, that is is a breach of the condition of a demise charter of a barge requiring it to be returned in good condition, except for ordinary wear, to return it in such good condition, but subject to a lien for the cost of repairs. Pa eee NDER the English as well as the American law, it was declared in the case of SUSANA, 2 F. (2d) 410, a stipulation given for release of the ship seized in a suit in rem for the enforcement of a lien is a substitute for the ship, and the lien is trans- ferred to it, and the ship released therefrom. ee eee ISABILITY of a pilot during a D part of the time of his employ- ment under a time contract did not authorize deduction from his wages, where he was not called on for service during that time, and it did not inter- fere with the performance of any duty required of him.—Lent Traffic Company v. Gould, 2 F. (2d) 544. 7 ee HILE it is true that a tug with a heavy and cumbersome tow is held to a degree of care commensurate with the risk, or, as some authorities seem to hold, to a high degree of care, or extreme care, to avoid danger of collision, it is also a rule of general application that, as between a steamer and a tug, although drawing a cum- bersome tow, it is a duty of the steam- er to keep out of the way of the latter, and to exercise extra precau- tion to avoid collision.’”—MAINE, 2 °F. (2d) 605. ek oe CONSIGNEE, who was, on the arrival of a cargo and at all times thereafter, ready, willing, and able to unload the cargo, but was pre- vented from so doing by the seller’s refusal, acquiesced in by the owner of the towboat which had towed the lighters tending the cargo, to permit the consignee to unload until payment of the invoice price, was not liable to the owner of the towboat for de- murrage and damages caused by de- lay; demurrage is allowed, it was held in the case of Little y. One Cargo of Lumber, 2 F. (2d) 608, against the consignee, where he by his acts in refusing delivery, caused the delay. Hes oe iC eee one of two vessels is privi- leged and entitled to keep her course does not excuse her for failing to observe the rules, for inattention to signals or failure to answer where an answer is required, or for not adopting such precautions as may be necessary to avoid a collision, it was decided in the case of WEST HART- LAND, 2 F. (2d) 834. There can seldom be a collision in the open sea and in clear weather, it was said, where there is no obstruction and the ves- sels are plainly visible to each other for a long distance, without fault on the part of both of the vessels; and it was held that the privileged of two steamships approaching each other on a clear night in Puget sound on crossing courses was in fault for a collision, where for a considerable time before the collision she was in doubt as to the course of the other vessel, but gave no danger signals, and after signalling her intention to keep her course and speed reversed full speed astern without warning. * HERE a cargo of lumber was damaged because of the vessel’s unseaworthiness, and was discharged before reaching its destination to per- mit of necessary repairs to the ves- sel, which was seized and sold, re- quiring the sale of the cargo at a loss, the owner of the cargo was en- titled to a maritime lien against the vessel for the loss sustained.—RICH- MOND, 2 F. (2d) a STEAMSHIP was held in fault in the case of SouTHWAY, 2 F. (2d) 1009, for collision with boats, properly moored to a_ stakeboat in a fog, for not anchoring when the fog became so dense that it was im- 60 possible to see for any distance; each vessel in a flotilla moored to a stake boat in anchorage grounds in a fog is required to give fog signals. * * * NE furnishing supplies to a ves- sel on the orders of a purchaser from the Shipping Board, with knowl- edge that the contract was one of conditional sale and the purchase price had not been paid, was charged with the duty of inquiring as _ to the terms of the contract, and ac- quired no lien where the contract ex- pressly prohibited the purchaser from imposing liens.—Frey & Son, Ine., v. United States, 1 F.(2d) 968. * * * A DREDGE employed in deepening channels in navigable water is a “vessel,” and persons employed there- on are “seamen,” within the meaning of the Federal law giving a lien for wages, according to the decision in the case of HURRICANE, 2 F.(2d) 70; and the foreman in charge of the work of a dredge, under direction of a super- intendent, is not a “master,” but a “seaman,” and also entitled to a lien for his wages. * * * Shee right of a shipowner to pro- 4% ceed under the maritime law to limit his liability to the value of the vessel is not subordinate to the right of an injured seaman to maintain an action at law to recover damages for injuries. These rights are independent and are in some respects concurrent, but. with respect to a final decree, limiting the liability of the shipowner, the maritime law is paramount.— ae Nelson Co. v. Curtis, 1 F.(2d) * * * PROVISION in bills of lading that the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by prolongation of the voyage,” it was decided in Florida Grain & Elevator Co. v. United States shipping board Emergency Fleet Corp., 3. (2d) 314, 1s Intended to protect it from liability for accidental delay, and does not ex- empt it from liability for the effect of delay caused by its own default or negligence or that of its agents. The court further held that where corn shipped under a contract of sale at the port of destination was dam- aged in transit through the fault of the carrier, the buyer. refused to ac- cept it and it was sold for the ac- count of the seller, the measure of his damages recoverable from his car- rier was the difference between the contract price and the price received, with interest, and inci ; ’ incidental incurred. ee