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 Te standing by in a situation of apprehended danger is service of a salvage nature is sufficiently estab- lished,” said the court in the case of PENDRAGON CASTLE, 5 Fed. (2d) 56; “and undoubtedly the lending of men to the vessel in danger for the pur- pose of jettisoning cargo is even more directly a salvage service; i.e., some- thing ‘designed to relieve [the bene- fited vessel], from some distress or danger either present or to be rea- sonably apprehended.’ ” * * * Osiris of a tug, in permitting a barge to drift while landing another barge when tide was_ flood, was negligent.—PANTHER, 5 Fed. (2d) 64. *K * * OLLISION between vessels riding on anchors in harbor during a strong wind, on failure of one ves- sel to drop a second anchor or get up steam until about time of the collision, and failure of the other vessel to pay out more than five fathoms of chain when danger of collision became immient. was _ held, in the case of TuNGUS, 5 Fed. (2d) 66, to be due to the fault of both vessels. ee NITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORP. cannot escape liability to an injured seaman, under the act of March 4, 1915, as amended, on the theory that it was acting as a public agent, and as such was not liable to suit; and the seaman, having under pain of penalties undertaken dangerous and unnecessary work at the direc- tion of officers of a vessel, was not chargeable with assumption of the risk.—United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. O’Shea, 5 Fed. (2d) 128. * oe HERE an alien shipped on a foreign ship under the flag of a foreign nation, the presumption is that his contract was valid under the law of such nation and that it is to be construed thereby: such seaman could not bring an action for wages in a Federal district court, where the vessel was not in a United States harbor.—Transportes Maritimos Do Estado v. Almeido. 5 Fed. (24) 251; LAUSE of a contract for trans- portation of cotton to France, by certain boat, that owing to war con- ditions shipment is accepted at own- er’s risk of any interference by any power, excuses the carrier, where the French high commission took all the space on the boat for the benefit of its government, and refused to allow the shipment thereon; the word “shipment” applying as fully to in- terference with the shipment accepted but not loaded as with a shipment actually put aboard—wN. P. Sloan Co. v. Churchill Line, 5 Fed. (2d) 156. bs * * HE authority of the master of a AL vessel is not in complete abeyance while a pilot, who is required by law to be accepted, is in discharge of his FUNCTIONS. <.i55 0.2042 A master of a vessel is not without fault in acquiescing in conduct of a pilot which involves ap- parent and avoidable danger, whether such danger is to the vessel upon which the pilot is, or to another vessel, or persons or property thereon or on shore—Jure v. United Fruit Co., 6 Fe (2d).6. * Ok ei a contract to furnish a staunch and strong boat, the shipper did not assume any risk of unseaworthiness.—Davis v. Dittmar, 6° FS (2d) 141. ES * * . aeaane seized. by the United States for forfeiture, for trans- porting intoxicating liquors on the high seas in violation of her license, it was decided in the case of LORRAINE Rita, 6 F. (2d) 175, was not sub- ject to release to a claimant on bond. * oe ok HOUGH masters of vessels in New York harbor are chargeable with notice of storm warnings raised upon the Whitehall building, and are prima facie negligent if they do not do so, the fact of a warning is not enough, without more, to constitute negligence. ‘‘We cannot agree,” said the court in the case of Bouchard Transporation Co., Inc., v. Pennsyl- vania Railroad Co., 6 F. (2d) 362, “that all work in the harbor must be suspended, for a day out of each week because the winds will blow. Secows must be staunch enough to withstand weather which is of such frequent occurrence. While, then, we do not, of course, mean to ignore the warnings as a circumstance, we decline to make them singly an abso- lute test. A wind of no more than 30 miles is perhaps not of itself a peril to a well-found scow...... In using the weather bureau velocities, one must make some allowance for the place where they are taken.” a VESSEL licensed for coastwise trade, found bringing in a cargo of more than 400 cases of alcohol, was subject to forfeiture for trading outside her license.—AMRIALD, 6 F., (20) 413, 48 NDER a provision of a charter party that “time lost through * * * frost * * * that, occasions a stoppage of delivery of coal to said steamer is not to be computed as part of the loading time,” the charterer was not liable for demurrage because of delay caused by ice which prevented the ship from docking at the loading place, it appearing that neither party was in fault and that the cargo was at all times ready for loading.— United States v. Kemmerer, 7 F. (2d) 187. * * LTHOUGH the articles may be wholly silent upon such points, said the court in Cresci v. Standard Fisheries, 7 F. (2d) 378, “law and reason imply certain obligations on the part of the master and owner to the mariner, which are equally imperative as those expressed in writing. Among these are the posi- tive duty to accord good treatment to a seaman after he has been injured in -the service of the ship, and the duty to supply the ship with food and medicines and to furnish them to the crew during the voyage.” * oe * OT all places on the high seas are foreign to the United States, within section 4337 of the revised statutes, providing for forfeiture of a vessel proceeding on a foreign voy- age without giving enrollment and license to the port collector, nor is any point outside the territorial limits of the United States a foreign point, it was held in the case of ESTHER M. RENDLE, 7 F. (2d) 545. The court further held that a tug enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade had not “proceeded on a foreign voyage,” subjecting her to forfeiture, by towing a lighter from port to a vessel hover- ing at sea, from which lighter was laden with liquor, and then towing her to port. Ey * Y THE sale of a ticket by a steamship company “there arose a contractual relationship between the company and the passenger, to which relationship,” said the court in the case of Pacific Steamship Co. v. Sut- ton, 7 F. (2d) 579, “the law by its own force annexed certain implied obligations and duties to be observed and performed by the parties, respec- tively, toward each other. The con- tract of carriage made it the duty of the carrier to carry safely and to pro- tect its passenger from violence and insult committed by its own servants.”