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 MOTORBOAT, enrolled and li- censed as a pleasure yacht, caught after a chase by the coast guard and found laden with 400 cases of liquors, was subject to forfeiture as engaged in the transportation of merchandise for pay.—HERRESHOFF, 6 F. (2d) 414. *x * * WHARFINGER, who maintains a wharf on which to receive goods consigned to himself, .... is under exactly the same duty to exer- cise care and skill, according to the circumstances, in giving boats which deliver cargo at -his wharf a safe berth, as is a wharfinger who main- tains a wharf only for the purpose of collecting wharfage.”—Kenny v. Bal- bach Smelting & Refining Co. 6 F. (2d) 671. # * * AA oeee a neutral ship, bound for a neutral port, was detained by the British government in war time and allowed to proceed only on agree- ment of the owner to return a part of the cargo for action of the prize court, such action, it was held in the case of Furness Shipping & Agency Co. v. Barber & Co., Inc., 6 F. (2d) 779, amounted to a _ seizure of the property. Pena ee HE master of the vessel is, in the performance of his duty, re- quired to ‘exercise reasonable care for the safekeeping of the goods intrusted to him. It did not cease when the goods left his vessel. If it was neces- sary to store them, ..... it was like- wise necessary to care for them while in storage. The exercise of this rea- sonable care, devolving upon the mas- ter, required such steps as the de- mands of safekeeping required.”— Furness Shipping & Agency Co., Inc. v. Barber & Co., Inc., 6 F. (2d) 779. * * Ao chartered to carry a full eargo for a single shipper, it was held in NorRDHVALEN, 6 F. (2d) 883, is not a common earrier. “She was not an insurer of the safety of the cargo,” said the court, “but merely a bailee to transport for hire, and, as such, only bound to use ordi- nary care. The mere fact of loss did not throw upon the vessel, as would have been the case with a common carrier, the burden of showing that she was seaworthy before she broke ground, and that the loss occurred from one of the causes excepted in the contract. of shipment.” By Harry Bowne Skillman Attorney at Law CARRIER vessel under embargo may declare a contract of carri- age off because of impossibility of performance when that impossibility appears.._-HENRY W. CRAMP, 6 F. (2d) 900. x * x poet to port passing is a normal and proper navigation. A_ vessel is not entitled to assume that an- other vessel will pass her starboard to starboard until two whistles are blown oe answered.—BILBSTER, 6 F. (2d) * * & ARGES in hawser tiers are ex- pected to be strong enough, if in a seaworthy condition, to withstand the strains of such towing.—McGee v. Davis, 6 F. (2d) 959. * * * Attn lien will arise for wharfage furnished to a ship at the request of any one authorized to bind the ship, said the court in CAPITAINE FAuRE, 7 F. (2d) 181. Speaking further: “The wharf in question was a privately owned wharf, the owners were not bound by any rates fixed by statute, but could make any rate which was_ satis- factory to the contracting parties, but such contract could not bind the ship, unless the one hiring the wharf had authority to bind the ship.” * * %* EGLIGENT failure to observe the condition of thermometers for recording temperatures in refrigerator compartments, and so to control tem- peratures therein, resulting in the freezing of a shipment, was not a fault in the management of the ves- sel, for which a ship is excused by section 3 of the Harter act, but negli- gence in not properly caring for the cargo, for which it is liable—Sam- LAND, 7 F. (2d) 155. * * * TUG, which towed a_ schooner to a pier in a slip, and which di- rected where lines should be run, was not liable for injury to scows on the opposite side of the slip when she careened at low water, though the tug left her docked with her crew on board, and did not warn her that she would take the ground at tide fall—N. Y. MARINE No. 3 7 F. (2d) 608. Hees SEAMAN, incapacitated during a voyage to a particular port by illness in the service without fault on his part, was entitled to recover wages to the end of his contract, in addition to maintenance and care up to that 23 time.—Enochasson v. Freeport Sul- phur:'Co., 7: Fi Gad) 64; * bd * IBELANT, failing to free a stranded vessel, can recover sal- vage only by showing its efforts con- tributed to a successful result.— Lincoln Steamship Line, Ine. _ v. United States, 7 F. (2d) 886. * * % AILURE of the captain of a boat to attempt to rescue a member of the crew known to have fallen overboard was negligence which was imputable to the owner of the boat, who was liable to dependent relatives of the member of the crew for pecuni- ary loss sustained by them by reason of his death.—Salla v. Hellman, 7 F. (2d) 953. * * TEAM vessels have no right to give passing signals except when they are in sight of each other, fog signals only being permissible in fog when they cannot see each other.— Managua Navigation Co. v. Aktiesel- skabet Borgestad, 7 F. (2d) 990. * % * O LIEN can be acquired for sup- plies furnished after the seizure of a vessel by the United States marshal in admiralty proceedings.— CULGOA, 8 F. (2d) 62. * * ae HERE tit’e to barges, sold under conditional bill of sale, did not pass, seller, on damage to barges, was entitled to have proceeds of in- surance policy, payable to him as his interest might appear, paid to repair- men, and applied in payment of claim against such barges, rather than on other indebtedness of purchaser to repairmen, whom it was shown knew that payment represented proceeds of policies and belonged to seller.—EDDIE, 8 F. (2d) 68. . ‘ be to note in bills of lading the insufficiency of containers did not estop steamship from asserting such insufficiency as the cause of the damage to the goods, as against con- signees suing the steamship for dam- age thereto—IsSLA DE PANAY, 8 F. (2d) 91. 3 AN UNJUSTIFIABLE deviation by a ship vitiates or avoids the con- tract of carriage, and the failure to comply with what in effect is a con- dition or warranty not to deviate dis- places it; the carrier is deprived of the benefit of an insurance clause in the bill of lading—Rosenberg Bros. & Co., v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. 7 F. (2d) 893.