The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Late Decisions in Maritime Law Specially Compiled for Marine Review By Harry Bowne Skillman | Legal Tips for Shipowners and Officers i as ‘HERE a ccharterer’s rights as to salvage are defined by agree- ment between the parties, the char- terer cannot rise to a higher posi- tion than that of being a joint ad- venturer with the owner in respect of salvage services performed by the chartered ship; the owner and the charterer may adjust rights in the salvage recovery by the owner’s exe- cution to the charterer of an off-hire certificate without objection thereto from the owner of the ship liable for the salvage—Castner, Curran & Bullitt, Inc., v. United States, 5 Fed. (2d) 214. * * * G loses arbitration law of New York, though affording a remedy in re- spect of a charter party, it was said in Atlantic Fruit Co. v. Red Cross Line, 5 Fed. (2d) 218, has no effect on whatever remedy admiralty offers for settlement of disputes arising under the same charter party; and noncompliance with agreement in a charter party to arbitrate disputes arising under the charter party did not bar suit in admiralty for non- payment of charter hire and expenses. : * * * ‘HOUGH a maritime lien is waived by accepting credit of the owner of a vessel, an agreement that wages of the crew of a dredge belonging to a subcontractor, which were paid by the contractor, should be repaid out of eanings of the dredge, did not waive the contractor’s lien on the dredge for wages paid; and a bridge contractor, which advanced wages of the crew of a dredge belonging to a subcontractor in order to carry on work under con- tract, was not a mere volunteer and was entitled to be subrogated to the crew’s lien against the dredge.—Field- er v. Bay Construction Co., 5 Fed. (2d) 227. bd * * T WAS decided in the case of United States v. Lester F. Alexander & Co., 5 Fed. (2nd) 280, that where a steamship was helpless at sea and was in some danger, though danger was not imminent, and was towed by one tug to safer anchorage where the master could conveniently make all Attorney at Law arrangements for towage to another point, and was towed by another tug to such point, allowance of salvage for services rendered by both tugs was proper. * * * PEAKING of international rules, arts. 20, 22, the court, in the case of BusNnos Aires, 5 Fed. (2d) 425, said: “The rule which requires a steam vessel too keep out of the way of a sailing vessel when proceed- ing in such directions as involve a risk of collision seems to have been a rule of navigation in the United States as long as steam has been used as a motive power. The rea- son lies in the fact that the motive power of the steamer is under human control and is at all times available, while the motive power of the other is not. ‘The wind bloweth not only where it listeth, but when it listeth.. . It may suddenly come ahead, or wholly cease; and in the latter case, she [the sailing vessel] would be help- less.’ ” RIVER steamboat, about to leave a narrow channel, which had signaled to an ocean steamer proceed- ing up the river that she intended to pass the steamer to starboard, instead of to port, and had received no assent or signal from the steamer, as a pre- cautionary act should have repeated her signals.—FELIx TAusSSIG, 5 Fed. (2). 612. * * * LOWING out of a fuse, causing the electrical steering gear of a submarine to become inoperative and the vessel to swing with the tide and to come into collision with an anchored barge, did not establish the defense of inevitable accident, it was decided in United States v. King Coal Co., 5 Fed. (2d) 780, where the vessel was suddenly put up against a_ strong running flood tide, throwing on the steering apparatus a load too great for the fuse to carry. * ok Bo Pan injured while returning to his ship from a _ voluntary trip ashore, because of the defective condition of the wharf, could not re- 24 cover against the owners of the ship, since the seaman was not in the owner’s service at the time of the accident and the owner’s duty to pro- vide a safe place in which to work did not extend to a place beyond the premises of employment, where the seaman had gone for his own pur- poses and over which the said owners had no control.—Todahl v. Sudden & Christenson, 5 Fed. (2d) 462. * * * UGS which responded to the first call for assistance of a stranded ship, and were faithful and efficient about their work, should be reasonably compensated, according to the decision in the case of SANTA Rosa, 5 Fed. (2d) 478, though they did not meet with success, and it was thought neces- sary to call in more powerful and better equipped wrecking crews, which were finally successful. The court also decided that the manager of two of the several tugs which took part in the floating of the vessel hav- ing superintended the entire work, a reasonable allowance to him on account thereof was proper. * * oe EITHER the United States nor a ship owned and registered in its name at the home port, designated on the stern of the ship, were liable in an action for services of stevedores rendered while the ship was in pos- session of a corporation to which the government had contracted to sell it, without inquiry as to ownership of the vessel either from those in charge of the vessel or at her home port, since in such case services were ren- dered without the exercise of reason- able diligence to ascertain the true ownership of such vessel.—LIBERATOR, 5 Fed. (2d) 585. * * kK UG, licensed for the coasting trade, was not employed in a trade other than that for which she was licensed, which subjected her to for- feiture under the revised statutes of the United States, by the towing of a lighter 20 miles to sea, where the lighter was laden with liquor from another vessel, and then towing her | back to port.—EstTHER M. RENDLE, 5 Fed. (2) 1007.