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 A SEAMAN and experienced water tender must be presumed to have been acquainted with his duties, and being in charge of work of removing a boiler cover, by the fall of which he was injured, it was his duty, according to the decision in the case of Waco, 3 F. (2d) 476, to avail himself of tackle provided for the work, and where rope was unsafe he should have procured other rope or reported the condition to his superior officer; placing of staging or a platform in such position that the seaman could not escape injury if the cover should fall, is negligence of the shipowners, under the rule that a vessel must be in all respects seaworthy, which is the equivalent of the common- law duty of providing safe place to work. * * * TEVEDORING is a maritime serv- ice,” said the court in the case of In Re Atlantic, Steamship Co., 3 F. (2d) 309, “and when rendered to a ship not in her home port gives rise to a maritime lien.” This is true, the court said, whether the libelant physically works or is a contractor employing others. It was said in the same case that an assignment or pledge of sums due for freight in consideration of ad- vancements furnished, without restric- tion as to purpose, does not create a maritime lien and is subordinate and inferior to a_stevedore’s lien; further, that a stevedore need not inquire as to an existing mortgage or other nonmaritime hypothecation as to which his rights are superior, and neither the shipowner nor the assignee of freights may complain that such inquiry was not made. In a companion case, reported in 3 F. (2d) 311, it was held that the as- signee of maritime freights, under as- signment for advancements made without specifying maritime use, has no maritime lien, and his claim is inferior and subordinate to that of one who furnished fuel oil to the ship for the voyage upon which the several months of preparation, the assignee’s claim is based. * * * > ADMIRALTY, a seaman is not precluded from recovery for personal by his contributory negli- gence; but, where the accident is caused partly by the shipowner’s negligence, the damages caused by the injury may be divided—WaAco, 8 F. (2d) 476. * injuries * * L WAS decided in the case of Meth- odist Episcopal hospital v. Pacific Transport Co., 3 F. (2d) 508, that a hospital can recover from a ship- Gulf & Pacific owner reasonable value of treatment furnished a seaman, injured while in the shipowner’s service, at the sea- man’s request, on: the shipowner’s failure to furnish treatment. * * * TUG, which towed a barge con- taining intoxicating liquor, un- laden, without the permit of a cus- toms collector or of a naval officer, in violation of law, was not subject to seizure or forfeiture, either on the theory that the barge and tug con- stituted one vessel, or that the tug was part of the “tackle, apparel, and furniture” of the barge.—DOLPHIN, 3 FE. (2d).1. : . MARITIME lien under the mer- chant marine act of 1920 for a marine engine, if a lien existed, was, according to the decision in the case of DEFIANCE, 3 F. (2d) 48, defeated by the unconditional delivery of the engine to the owner at a_ point distant from the vessel, instead of to the vessel’s side. It was further held that where no maritime lien existed in favor of the seller of a marine en- gine, the transferee of the purchase- money note acquired no lien; also, that one who, on the master’s credit, advanced money with which the master of the vessel purchased the marine engine, acquired no maritime lien. * * * HERE a minor was assaulted while a passenger on a ship, and on arrival in port was taken to the offices of the ship owner, where she was fully interrogated, an ac- tion for the assault was not barred by failure to give formal notice of the claim within ten days, as re- quired by a limitation printed in small type on the back of her ticket, which was not:called to her attention.— Sutton v. Pacific Steamship Co., 3 F. (2d) 72. * * LOG raft is a “vessel,” it was held in the case of LIBBY MAINR, 8 F. (2d) 79, and is subject to inland rules as to fog signals; the mere fact of anchorage of a log raft in a harbor without a written permit was not a bar to the recovery of damages for a collision, which was the result of the negligence of another. * * * Ae PAID-UP fleet’? of government ships not fit. for service without several months of preparation the facts and reasonable inferences there- from showing withdrawal from navi- gation, was not a “vessel,” within section 4612 of the United States revised statutes, defining a “seaman” as one working on a vessel, and a 26 “vessel” as “every description of ves- sel navigating on any sea, or channel, lake or river’; and those employed thereon, it was said in the case of Gonzales v. Unitel States shipping board, Emergency Fleet Corp, 3 F. (2d) 168, were not seamen but work- men, not entitled to maintain an action at law for injuries received in working in the dead ships as seamen. * * * NE hiring a derrick boat for a certain number of days, during which, if needed, it might be worked eight hours, and who was liable for extra work if worked more than eight hours on any single day, was not entitled, according to Sherwood v. American Sugar Refining Co., 38 F. (2d) 3382, to set off night shifts, when the boat was worked, against days when it did not work at all. Eo * * LIMITATION in bills of lading of an American steamship com- pany of three months for bringing suit for damage to a cargo was held in the case of Green Star Steamship Co. v. Nanyang Bros. Tobacco Co., 38 F. (2d) 369, unreasonable and in- valid as applied to shipments from the United States to China. * * * AS’ AWARD, which included pay- ment for the time of a vessel and crew from the time of leaving to their return to port, and a bonus of $40.00 was fair and reasonable, it was de- cided in the case of Natwa, 3 F. (2d) 381, where it appeared that libelant, with a wrecking steamer and large crew, successfully salvaged a steam- ship which had been stranded in the Bahamas for 20 days and a part of her cargo jettisoned, the steamship being worth before stranding, with cargo, $2,075,000, and that there was a loss on vessel and cargo, because of stranding of $870,000, the work being efficiently done, but involving no special element of danger. * * * HE Jones act of March 4, 1915, prescribing rights of seamen, en- forceable in the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which -his principal office is located, authorizes actions against corporations organized outside the United States; the “principal office” of such foreign steamship company being the prin- cipal place where it does business in the United States.—Stewart v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co.; 3 F. (2d) 829. * * "THE making of repairs furnishes no inferences that a vessel was unseaworthy or not cargoworthy be- fore receiving such repairs.—GoyAz, 3 F. (2d) 558.