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 T WAS decided in the case of United States v. Middleton, 3 F. (2d) 384, that a broker, in loading goods on a ship owned by the govern- ment and operated by another, was required merely to act in good faith, and not liable to the government on recovery by the shipper from the owner of damages for delay in ship- ment, merely because it knew that the certificate of inspection had ex- pired, and knew that under the gov- ernment’s general policy, the operator could not transport goods from the particular port. The court decided further that delay in shipment did not render the owner liable to the ship- per’s agents, who had no_ property at risk in the venture, on the theory that, if the venture had been success- ful, the shipper would have been satis- fied with its bargain, and would have done more business through the agents on which the agents would have realized a profit. * * * [- IS a fault for a barge to be without an anchor, it was said in the case of Rep EAGLE, 3 F. (2d) 541, the court also holding that there is no duty on the master of a stakeboat to look after the fastenings of barges moored to it, such duty resting on the barges. * * OOD and supplies for passengers of a vessel are necessaries, said the court in GDANSK, 8 F. (2d) 565, and the furnishing of such supplies — conforms to the maritime service _of the vessel and gives a right of action in rem.. * * * N INJURY to a seaman during the voyage, it was the captain’s duty to obtain medical aid at an intermediate port, if he had no means of affording medical attention on board, and the captain’s error of judg- ment in believing that the injured seaman was shamming did not relieve the ship from responsibility of pro- viding maintenance and cure.—Morris v. United States, 3 F. (2d) 588. * * AA BERe the master of a barge failed to obey. the wharfinger’s instruction to breast off five feet from bulkhead, so that the barge would clear ridge of mud at low tide, the owner, and not the charterer was liable for injuries resulting therefrom. —C, F: Harms Co. v. Turner Const. Co. 8. -Fy2..(20). 691. * * # HE measure of damages recover- able by an injured seaman on the master’s refusal to afford medical aid and maintenance is the consequential damages, but does not include dam- By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law ages for pain and suffering nor com- pensation for injury due to physical incapacity, and an injured seaman, who was forced to, work at a time when he was entitled to be maintained in rest for cure, was entitled to com- pensation for such period.—Morris v. United States, 3F. (2d) 588. * * & NDER the rule that restitution in integrem is the maxim to _ be applied in collision cases, if it is shown by evidence that a vessel sub- stantially identical with that lost can be purchased in the open market for a certain price, that price represents the market value so far as the loss of the injured party is concerned; that the owner and master of the vessel lost was of more than usual ability and skill, and was able to obtain profitable charters and make good earnings, is not an element tc be considered in estimating his loss, where the vessel could be replaced in the market; and where the vessel was a total loss, estimated profits from the charter not entered upon are not an element of damages recoverable. THE BENJAMIN A. VAN Brunt, 3 F. (2d) 655. : * * * LIEN on a vessel cannot be en- forced against a stranger to the title having a maritime lien by one who, as part owner, is himself liable for the debt underlying such lien.— FRANK BRAINERD, 3 F. (2d) 664. * * * XCEPTIONS in bills of lading is- sued on behalf of a barge, for goods laden on board, apply only to the barge, it was decided in Sacra- mento Navigation Co. v. Salz, 3 F. (2d) 759, and not to a towing tug, not mentioned therein, though it is the property of the same owner, and such exceptions do not relieve it from liability for negligent towage. * Eo * ‘HE master of a schooner and the ‘master of a towing tug were both held in fault by the court in the case of Blanchard Lumber Co. v. Metcalf, 8 F. (2d) 768, for the stranding of the schooner in a tidal river; the master of the schooner for ordering her out after the most favorable state of the tide had passed, and the mas- ter of the tug, who knew the river, for obeying the, order. * * * JHERE onions were shipped in *crates constructed so as to make their contents visible, the carrier was put upon notice and was bound to furnish a vessel seaworthy for the conveyance of a cargo of that na- ture; and where the cargo was dam- 42 aged by delay caused by gross negli- gence in navigation of the vessel, re- sulting in the ship going aground, general average will not be ordered, but libelant should recover the dif- ference between the market value of the goods at place of delivery in good condition and the net amount realized from the sale of goods in their dam- aged condition—BUCKLEIGH, 3 fF. (2d) 829.. * & TUG is not an insurer of the safety of its tow, nor responsible for errors of judgment of the mas- ter, if a competent seaman exercising fee care.-—ASHWAUBEMIE, 3 F. (2d) * *e * HERE the owner of a tug con- tracted to transport a scow, and to take entire charge of its navi- gation, the owner, having no repre- sentative thereon, was responsible for its seaworthiness, and the tug for its navigation and for placing lights thereon necessary for its safety and the safety of other vessels.—LIZZIE M. WALKER, 3 F. (2d) 921. * * Aer over a navigable stream is an obstruction to navigation, and when the Federal authorities au- | thorize the construction of a bridge with a draw, the duty is cast on those maintaining it to see that the draw is properly operated.—BRIMSTONE, 3 F. (2d) 1011. * ok * ERVICES’ rendered on _ employ- ment by its agent in fumigat- ing the baggage of a steamship, re- quired by the United States medical officer of the port before she would be allowed to land her passengers, gave the right to a lien against the vessel.—SUSQUEHANA, 38 F. (2d) 1014. a * %* ROVISION in a contract of car- iriage made by tickets for a tourist voyage, including shore trips to desig- nated .places, giving a carrier the right to withdraw a shore excursion did not give it the right to refuse to take pas- sengers on a designated trip without a substantial reason for not doing so. —Ebsary v. Raymond Whitcomb Co., 4 F. (2d) 285. * * e NE who furnished oil to a vessel owned by the United States, at the request of an agent authorized to buy supplies furnished at the master’s re- quest, and who advanced money to pay stevedores for loading a vessel at the master’s request, was entitled to a lien on the vessel—Thompson v. United States, 4 F. (2d) 412.