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

6 THE MARINE RECORD. IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR UNDERWRITERS. In the Edinburgh Court of Sessions, before Lord Kyllachy, judgment was pronounced in an action brought by, the owners of the sailing ship Blairmore Company, Limited, Glasgow, for payment of £100, and also £6 13s 4d. The Blairmore was in the beginning of April, 1896, at San Francisco awaiting employment, and on the 7th of that month the owners effected, through their managing owners, an insurance on her hull and materials for £15,000. Of this sum £100 was underwritten by the defendant. On the 9th of April the Blairmore, whilst moored in the Bay of San Francisco, was struck by a squall and sank. The plaintiffs stated that they and the underwriters mutually arranged that tenders should be invited for raising the ship. The master and agents at San Francisco advised the acceptance of an offer to lift the vessel at a cost of £5,760. The underwriters refused to accept the offer, and then the plaintiffs, bécoming satisfied that the vessel could only be raised and repaired at an expense greatly in excess of her value, gave notice of abandonment of the ship to the underwriters. They now claimed payment for the full insurance from the underwriters. The defend- ants. denied that the vessel was a constructive total loss, and explained that the underwriters succeeded in raising her in July, 1896, at a cost of about £7,600, which had all been paid by the underwriters prior to the raising of the action. The other writers, he explained, had agreed to abide by the decision in this case. Lord Kyllachy found that the plaintiffs’ statements were irrelevant as founding a claim under a policy as for a total loss, and dismissed the action, with expenses to the defendants. His lordship said he thought it might be taken that the following was the state of the facts as ‘alleged or admitted by the plaintiffs. The Blairmore was lying in San Francisco Bay on tne oth of April last. On that day she was struck.by a squall and sank, and thereby became, at least for the time, a constructive total loss. That, he thought, was hardly disputed. At all events notice of abandonment was given to the underwriters, and although that notice was not accepted, but declined, it must for present purposes be assumed that at the date of the notice the vessel was so placed that of action had been at once brought the owners must have recovered for a total loss. But what happened in point of fact was this: The owners did not at once bring their action, ~and the underwriters, declining to accept their notice ‘of abandonment, proceeded to raise the ship, and before the action was brought they had succeeded in doing so and in placing her in safety in San Francisco Harbor. The cost was considerable, amounting to £7,600, a cost considerably exceeding what , having regard to the value of the vessel, a prudent owner would have expended for the purpose. That, at least, was the plaintiffs’ statement, -and accordingly at this stage it must be taken as true that but. for the high valuation expressed in the policy, a valuation which, in the event of total loss, actual or constructive, fixed the payment to the insured, the under- writers would not have thought of raising the vessel at so great a cost. They did, however, raise her, and she now lay in San Francisco Harbor, not ready for sea, but capable of repair, and that at a cost which plaintiffs did not allege would be as much as her actual value. These being the facts, the first question which arose was this: Was it necessary for the plaintiffs to aver and prove not only that there was a total loss, actual or constructive, at the date of abandonment, but also that that state of matters continued down to the raising of the vessel? On this head the controversy between the parties came, his lordship thought, to a very narrow point. It was con- ceded on both sides that the question referred to was one of a kind on which the Scotch courts, having no estab- lished rule of their own, were rightly accustomed to fol- low the rules which had been established in England. It was also conceded that in the law of England—differ- ing from the law of most maritime states, including France and America—it had long been a settled rule that in deciding as between total and partial loss the date to be looked to was not the date of abandonment, but the date of action. All this plaintiffs conceded; but ac- cording to them the rule or principle thus expressed meant that when examined only that the insurers, equally with the insured, were entitled to the benefit by way of evidence of all light which might be derived from any- thing that might have occurred prior to the date of the raising of the action. As to this his lordship had only to say that he was unable to limit the English rule. So limited it would not, it seemed to him, really differ from the French and American rules, which yet it admittedly did. Moreover, on the construction suggested, it would not really be the date of the action, but the date of the trial which would have to looked to. It was not therefore surprising that the pursuers.could cite no authority upon this proposition. His lordship had looked into the En- glish authorities, and, rightly or wrongly, they seemed to establish quite clearly that, however well justified the notice of abandonment had been given, yet if before action was brought the situation had changed the insurer had the benefit of the change. There was, however, a second point raised by the plaintiffs which was perhaps more arguable. Admitting they saw that the insurers could take advantage of any accident or any act of third parties bettering the situation of the vessel at the date of action, that did not imply that the insurers could them- selves intervene, and by operations of their own, con- ducted, it might be, at exorbitant cost, convert a total into a partial loss, and so it might be escape from their just obligations under a valued policy. His lordship confessed that he was at first rather impressed by this argument. But on consideration he had not been able to find any sufficient ground for it. If the rule were that the ques- tion of partial or total loss was in suspense until the date of the action he had failed to discover any term in the contract of insurance or any rule of general law which should disable the insurers from doing their best in the interval to their advantage. The vessel, they might say, was abandoned and derelict. The underwriters sent in search of her and towed her into port, or she was, as in this case, submerged. They raised her and placed her in a graving dock. His lordship did not see why, having done so lawfully, they should be bound to discuss with the insurers the propriety or cost of their operations, or why, not choosing to do so, they should be bound to charge as for salvage, and to have such charge treated as a charge affecting the vessel. The true position of the matter was just this—that the shipowner in the cases figured had ‘the benefit of a gratuitous, just as he might have had in the benefit of an accidental, salvage, and that his claim under his policy as a claim for indemnity must be considered in view of that fact. It would of course be a different matter if the defendants’ interference with the vessel could be construed as an acceptance of the abandonment, or, what came to the same thing, could be held as implying an assumption of ownership. But there were two diffi- culties in the way of that conclusion. In the first place, as more than once had been decided, salvage operations by the insurers did not per se imply acceptance of aban- donment. They only did so when the whole circum- stances justified the insured in so interfering. In the second place, there was in the present policy an express clause providing that “the acts of the insurer or insured in recovering, saving or preserving the property insured, shall not be considered a waiver or acceptance of aban- donment.” His lordship could not therefore hold that the underwriters were not at liberty to raise the ship with a view of converting her even after notice of aban- donment from a total into a partial loss, or that the cost which they incurred in doing so fell to be treated as if if were a charge by outside salvors affecting the vessel. The result of the whole was that, as the ship was now raised and in safety, and as the pursuers did not aver that she could not be repaired within her actual’ value, he must hold this action to. be irrelevant, and dismiss the same. This, of course, would not prevent the plaintiffs from bringing, if necessary, another action claiming as for a partial loss. His lordship added that he had pro- nounced a judgment upon the relevancy at the joint request of parties. Nee EEE THAT SOUTHERN OUTLET. Cleveland, Ohio, March 9, 197. To the Marine Record: At the last meeting of the Lake Carriers’ Association, the sentiment prevailed that gets expression in the old saying, “The survival of the fittest.” This was spoken in connection with the smaller vessels being supplanted by the large vessels that are now being built, and have been, for the last year, on the Great Lakes. Much agitation has occurred over the question in the last year with ref- erence to the canals to the seaboard, and this suggests the application of the “survival of the fittest.” A large portion of the products of the United States that go abroad must come from west of the Mississippi, and south of the north line of Nebraska and Iowa. A glance at t map of the United States shows at once that this territ is several times larger than the territory north of t line, and north of the Ohio River, east of the Mississipp Another glance at the map of the United States shows that the distance from this territory to Galveston and New Orleans and Newport News is much shorter than to New York, and the railroad haul in this territory to the ports on the Gulf of Mexico is less than the railroad haul to the Great Lakes. The water haul to the foreign ports, is less then, than by way of the Great Lakes, say nothing about the transfer and railroad haul from Buffalo. to New York. Newport News has this same advantage over New York for all of this territory, but perhaps not, in so great a degree, as the ports on the Gulf of Mexico. That this territory is developing rapidly, and that its prod- ucts aré seeking the natural outlet of the shortest and least expensive route is shown by the following figures: There were 16,000,000 bushels more wheat exported from the United States in 1896 than in 1895, but the quantity from New York decreased 2,000,000, while in Galveston the shipments were 3,438,969 bushels; from which port there were no shipments in 1895. New Orleans shipments increased in 1896 3,000,000 bushels over the shipments of 1895. The shipments of corn in 1896 were 67,000,000 bushels more than in 1895. New York reports a small decrease in shipments; Baltimore has an increase of 17,000,000 bushels; Norfolk, 9,000,000; Newport News,*5,500,000; Galveston, 5,000,000; New Orleans, 16,500,000. The “survival of the fittest” from natural advantages is frequently overcome by the ingenuity and energy of man, by which things are steered into the direction in which his interest demands. The question arises, how much can those interested ‘in’ lake traffic do to hold the grain trade, and how can it be done? It must seem clear to any one that if the grain is to be hauled by the rounte of the Great Lakes from any section except the extreme Northwest, it must in the near future be taken from the point of lading to the point of unlading in the foreign port without transfer, and by one continuous route. It seems to us that this undertak- ing will in the near future come upon those interested in lake traffic. Respectfully submitted, O. CC: PINNEY. = SS eee VISIBLE SUPPLY OF GRAIN. As compiled for The Mari: e Record by George F. Stone, Secret ry Chicago Board of Trade. Cities WHERE WHEAT, |} CORN. OATS, RYE, | BARLEY, SToRED. Bushels. | Bushels | Bushels.| Bushels | Bushels.. Albanyon SSG ivsee. (SM as 50,000 MOO NOO LT: Mes toe i . oe 489,000 | 1,767,000 489 000 18 O00; 13 Sos Sante f 635,000.) 1,040.000 147 000 1 000 Butaloe ae ace 1 215,000 : as afloat....... | 240,000 Chicago; ¢ccccte. cs |11,141,000 id afloat....... 200,000 Cineinnatt® 2222s 6 000 Detroiten hea. cee 312,000 Ke BHOAE. 73.00 3) Sy we gh Duluth and Superior) 4,769,000 afloat....... 402,000 Tngienajelts Betis 125,000 Kansas City ......... 882,000 Milwaukee.......... 265,000 is Shoat. Ae nee Minneapolis......... 16 079,000 66 000 843 000 24 000 Montreal ............ 459,000 23 000; 487 000 28, 000 New YOM cece mee 2,836,000 | 4,618,000 | 1,927 000 259,000 afloat...... 836,000 255,000 | 10,000 8,000 Gancea Bona 16;900 hincin clay eoae ie ages Peotla 620. 40 38 000 152,000 111,000 9,000 Philadelphia . si 404,000 | 2,004 000 165/000 | o.oo acai aire een Stirbouisssc acs 735.000 | 2,231,000 329,000 25,000 sf PNORL aa ieee sa PU AU e peers arm yer ise NoledO. tics. s Secs 984,000 | 1,874,000 56 000 102,000 ).0 5.0: ee " BHOAL.: er cies bw acc edie ac Pours one Ce keh eee aa ee NOTONTON Ou ia oes ZOO O00! sin vas cele 64,000 |.......... OniCanalisi sais) Valens. clidhaa ee ee hobs ae a ae eee On Lakes eric. sieges Iie cowie eases | Seeger eee anne le ae eo eee On Mississippi ......).......... 22,000 21,000; | 3c. ec upeacneaie Grand Total..... 42,768,000 |26,377,000 |18,823,000 | 3 574,000 Corresponding Date SOs oe iiseas 62,596 000 |14 05), 000 | 7,228,000 | 1,490,000 ooo The Roberts Safety Water Tube Boiler Co. have nearly completed the two large boilers for Mr. Harrison B. Moore’s yacht ‘Marietta,’ which is nearly ready for launching by the Erie Basin Dry Dock Co. This yacht will be operated on the closed fire room, forced draft principle and is expected to make twenty-three miles pe hour. Mr. Roberts had a pair of Roberts boilers in “Mar- ietta No. 1,” which made nineteen miles per hour, an pair of Roberts boilers in “Marietta No. 2,” for whic twenty-one miles per hour was claimed. This make fourth yacht in which Mr. Moore has used Roberts bo ers