Слике страница
[ocr errors]

the cargo, by good and approved bills, payable in London, at four months, or by cash, deducting the usual interest, at the option of the shippers.” On the ship's arrival at B., one-third of the freight was paid, and the consignee elected to pay the remainder in cash, less interest. Held, that the master need not deliver the cargo, unless the consignee paid the remainder of the freight (r).

2. Goods were shipped in the Hoogley, for London, on account of A. The bill of lading being forwarded to A., he indorsed it over for value. The bill of lading stated the freight to have been paid in Bengal. But in fact it had not been paid, through the shipper's default. Held, that the shipowner could not claim the freight from the assignees of the bill of lading (8).

3. By a charter-party for the conveyance of coal from Cardiff to Buenos Ayres, the master was to “sign bills of lading for the cargo put on board, as presented to him by the charterers, without prejudice to the terms of the charter-party.” On arrival at the port of discharge, the coal delivered was thirty-two tons less than the quantity mentioned in the bill of lading. Held, the shipowners were not liable for the deficiency to the consignee(t).

§ 66. The consignee is entitled to have a reasonable time and opportunity after the ship's arrival for fetching his goods from the vessel, unless some special custom prevail at the port (u). In the case of a transferable bill of lading not being produced within a reasonable time, the master may hand over the goods to a third person, to hold till it is produced (x).

The consignee will not be entitled to abandon the cargo, on the ground of its being damaged, and at the same time to refuse to pay the freight, though he will, of course, be entitled to compensation, if the damage be caused by the act or default of the master or crew (y).

Where the owner of goods imported from abroad fails


Entry of and landing of goods by consignee.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

to make entry of or land them by the time specified in the bill of lading or charter-party, the shipowner can make entry of and land them at any time after the time specified. If no time be specified, the shipowner can, after the expiration of seventy-two hours from the time when the ship was reported, land the goods. The goods on being so landed must be placed in a warehouse or on a wharf.

If, at the time when the goods are so landed, the shipowner gives the warehouse keeper or wharfinger a written notice of his lien, then the goods may be detained both for the lien of the shipowner, as well as for the rent of the wharf or warehouse (ə).

If the consignee do not pay the lien, or give security for it, the goods may, after the expiration of ninety days from the date of the deposit, be sold (a); or at an earlier date if the goods be of a perishable nature.

The proceeds of the sale are to be applied by the wharf or warehouse owner in the following order, in the absence of any contrary agreement:(1.) In payment of any customs or excise duties due on

the goods, if sold for home use. (2.) In payment of the costs of the sale. (3.) In payment of the rent, rates, and other charges

due to the wharf or warehouse owner on account

of the goods. (4.) In payment of the freight and other charges due to

the shipowner on account of the goods. However, if the wharf or warehouse owner and the shipowner enter into any agreement as to the priority of their respective charges, the agreement will be valid. Any surplus must, of course, be paid over to the owner of the goods (6).

§ 67. The owner of a general ship is subject to the same Liability of responsibility for loss of or damage to goods carried, as a

shipowner as

cargo. common carrier, subject to the rules hereinafter contained,


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

and also subject to any express conditions contained in the bill of lading. Thus he will be protected by the ordinary exception in a bill of lading (c), as to dangers and accidents; but that exception will not cover injuries arising from bad stowage, wet or defective ventilation, or damage done by rats. The shipowner is liable for damage done by rats, though he has taken the precaution to put cats on board (d). So he will be liable for any damage to the goods shipped caused by any act of the shipmaster within the scope of his employment or expressly authorized by the owner (e).

The insertion of the words “not accountable for leakage” will exempt the owners from liability for loss from leakage, unless caused by the negligence of the master or crew (f). But they will not exempt the owners from liability for damage caused by the leakage, for instance, damage caused by oil escaping from barrels which leaked (9)

Though there be contributory negligence on the part of the shipper, the shipowner will still be liable where his negligence was the proximate, as distinguished from the remote cause of the loss (h). Thus if the shipowners negligently place the goods next to some destructive substance (e.g. sulphuric acid), even though that be also shipped by the owners of the goods, without giving notice, the shipowners will still be liable for the damage caused (i).

The shipowner can protect himself from liability to make good losses occasioned by the negligence or default of the master or crew by inserting a clause to that effect in the bill of lading (k). The protection will not extend

(c) Vide Chap. VIII. § 48, p. 70. (f) The Helene, Br. & L. 429 ;

(d) Laveroni v. Drury, 8 Exch. Philips v. Clark, 2 C. B., N. S. 166 ; Kay v. Wheeler, L. R., 2 C. P. 156. 302.

(9) Thrift v. Youle, 2 C. P. D.
(e) The Druid, i W. Rob. 391; 432.
The Excelsior, L. R., 2 A. & E. (h) Alston V. Herring, 11 Ex.
268 ; Fenton v. Dublin Steam Packet

822, 830.
Co., 8 Ad. & E. 835; Eubank v. (i) Ib., p. 822.
Nutting, 7 C. B. 797 ; Schuster v. (k) Steel v. State Line Steamship
McKellar, 7 E. & B. 701,

Co., 3 App. Cas. 72; The Duero,
L. R., 2 A. & E. 393.

beyond the acts, if any, of the master and crew mentioned in the clause (1). The owner of a seagoing ship, or of any share in it, is In respect of

loss by fire. not liable for any loss or damage by fire of or to any goods on board his vessel, unless caused by his actual fault or privity (m).

Nor is he liable to make good any loss or damage, In the case of occurring without his actual fault or privity of or to any embezzlement

robbery or gold, silver, watches, jewellery, diamonds or other precious of valuables. stones on board his ship by reason of any robbery, embezzlement, making away with, or secreting thereof; unless the owner or shipper has, at the time of shipping such articles, inserted in the bill of lading or otherwise declared in writing their true value and nature (»). Exemption from liability in these instances will not extend to foreign ships (0).

The owner of the ship or the master is not liable for any In case of loss caused by the fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot pilotage.

compulsory in charge of the vessel within any limits within which the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory either by the law of England (P), or by the law of the country in which the loss occurred (9), even though by the latter the owner is not freed from his liability.

If the damage or loss arise partly from the misconduct of the master or crew, the owner will be liable (»), though the pilot contributed towards it.

(1) Hayn v. Culliford, 4 C. P. D. The G, S. N. Co. v. The B. & C. S. 182 ; see “ Cases " (1) at end of N. Co., L. R., 4 Exch. 238; The

Clyde Navigation Co. v. Barclay, 1 (m) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 503 ; App. Cas. 790; The Princeton, 3 Schmidt v. Royal Mail Steamship Co., P. D. 90; and see Chap. XV. 45 L. J., Q. B. 646.

§ 102, p. 173. (n) Id.; Gibbs v. Potter, 10 M. & (2) The Halley, L. R., 2 P. C. W. 70; Williams v. The African Steamship Co., 1 H. & N. 300; (r) The Diana, 1 W. Rob. 131; see“ Cases” (2) at end of this y. The City of Cambridge, L. R., 5

(6) The Screw Collier Co. v. Schur- P. C. 451; The Batarier, 9 Moore, manns, 29 L. J., Ch. 877.

P. C. 286; and see Chap. XV. (p) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 388; § 102, pp. 173, 174. The Hibernian, L. R., 4 P. C. 511;

this $.


In the case of The owners of any ship, whether British or foreign, are loss or damage

only liable for any damage or loss caused, without their limitation of fault or privity, to any goods whatsoever on board or to liability.

ships or boats to an aggregate amount not exceeding 81. for each ton of the ship’s tonnage, whether or not there occur in addition loss of life or personal injury.

In respect of loss of life or personal injury, the owners are not responsible in damages to an aggregate amount exceeding 151. for each ton of ship's tonnage; whether such loss of life or personal injury be combined with loss of or damage to ships, boats or goods. However, they are liable to pay interest on that amount from the date of the accident (s).

In the case of sailing ships, the tonnage is to be the ship’s registered tonnage ; in the case of steam ships, the gross tonnage, no deduction being allowed on account of engine-room ; in the case of a foreign ship, which has

! been measured according to British law, the tonnage so ascertained ; and in the case of a foreign ship not so measured, the Surveyor-General of Tonnage in the United Kingdom is to certify as to the probable tonnage of the

ship, and such shall be deemed to be her tonnage (t). Limitation If there be several claims, the owner may apply to the actions.

Chancery or Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice to determine the amount, and divide it among the claimants, and to stay all other proceedings (u). An owner instituting such an action for limitation of liability is not required to admit his liability (x).

The owners are liable in respect of every damage to or loss of goods, or every loss of life or personal injury, arising

(8) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, s. 54;
The Franconia, 3 P. D. 164; Smith
v. Kirby, 1 Q. B. D. 131 ; The
Andalusian, 3 P. D. 182 ; and see
Chap. XIV. § 95, p. 162.

(t) 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, B. 54.
(u) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 514;

Leycester v. Logan, 26 L. J., Ch. 306 ; see “ Cases " (3) at end of this ; 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 13.

(2) Hill v. Audus, 24 L. J., Ch. 229; The Amalia, 1 Moo.P.C., N. S. 471; Br. & L. 151 ; and see Chap. XIV. § 95, p. 163.

« ПретходнаНастави »