Слике страница

The sugar


on different occasions, to the same extent as if no other damage or loss had occurred (y).

The liability of the owner is equally limited, whether he be sued by a British subject or by a foreigner (s).

CASES. 1. Sugar was carried at an agreed freight under a bill of lading, which excepted the owners from liability for the acts of the master and crew, but not from liability for negligent stowage. was negligently stowed under oxide of zinc and damaged. Held, that the shipowners were liable for the damage (a). 2. A parcel of goods shipped was described in the bill of lading

one box containing about 248 ounces of gold dust.” Held, that this was not a sufficient statement of the value to make the shipowner liable for its loss (6).

3. A judgment having been obtained in the Admiralty Court, condemning the owners of the F. in damages and costs in respect of the loss of a vessel run down by her, the F. was arrested by process of the Admiralty Court, and was liable to be sold. Held, on a bill filed by the owners of the F., that the Court of Chancery had jurisdiction to stop any further proceedings (c).

4. Through improper navigation a steamer ran into and damaged a ship, and immediately afterwards sank a steam-tug. In a suit for limitation of liability, instituted on behalf of the owner of the steamer, it was held that, the whole damage to the ship and steamtug, and to the goods on board them, being caused substantially at the same time, the plaintiff was entitled to have his liability in respect of the whole damage limited to 81. per ton for each ton of his steamer's tonnage (d).


§ 68.

in case

An action can be brought in the Admiralty Division of Jurisdiction the High Court of Justice for damage done to goods damage to carried into any port in England or Wales by the negli- cargo. gence, misconduct of, or breach of duty or contract, on the part of the shipowner, shipmaster or the crew, unless the owner or any part-owner be domiciled in England or

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

Wales. The action can be brought either by the consignor, the consignee, or the indorsee of the bill of lading (e). As soon as the action is instituted the ship will be liable to arrest, as in cases of collision (f).

Though the Admiralty Division has, in the cases referred to, jurisdiction to entertain an action either in personam or in rem by the arrest of the ship, yet the owner of the damaged cargo will not have any maritime lien. The arrest of the ship cannot avail against any binding charge on the ship or against a bonâ fide purchaser (9).

Where it is contemplated that goods may possibly be delivered in an English port, and the bills of lading so provide, and the master actually puts into an English port for orders in part fulfilment of the contract of affreightment, the Admiralty jurisdiction will not be ousted by the ship subsequently proceeding to a foreign port to be discharged, at least in respect of causes of action existing when the ship was in the English port (n).

The county court jurisdiction in respect of damage to cargo extends to cases where the claim does not exceed 3007.; provided that where the parties consent in writing, any cause in respect of damage can be tried in the county court, whatever the amount claimed (i). An action in a county court may be transferred to the Admiralty Division on motion made by either the plaintiff or the defendant (k).

In all other cases of damage, the parties will be left to their remedies at law.

§ 69.

Through booking contracts.

Where a railway or canal company by through booking contracts to carry any animals, goods, or luggage, partly


(9) The Piève Superiore, L. R., 5 P. C. 482.

(h) Ib.

(e) 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 6; The Dannebrog, L. R., 4 A. & E. 386; The Princess Royal, L. R., 3 A. & E. 41; and see Ex parte Michael (cause for necessaries), L. R., 7 Q. B. 658.

(f) See Ch. XIV. § 90, p. 158; The Pière Superiore, L. R., 5 P. C.

(i) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, s. 3; The Cargo ex Argos, L. R., 5 P. C. 134 ; The Alina, 5 Ex. D. 227.

(k) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, ss. 6, 7.

by railway or canal, and partly by sea, the company can limit its liability in respect of any loss or damage which may arise during the carriage of the animals, goods, or luggage, by sea from the act of God, the king's enemies, fire, accidents from machinery, boilers, and steam, and all other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation. But notice of such a condition must be published in a conspicuous manner in the office where the through booking is effected, and be legibly printed on the freight note or receipt given by the railway or canal company for the animals or goods (1).

Again, in the case of animals carried on steam vessels employed by a railway company, the liability of the railway company is limited to 501. in respect of a horse, 151. per head for neat cattle, and 21. per head for sheep or pigs, unless their value be declared at the time of delivery, and a higher charge be paid if required (m).

Though the Carriers' Act (11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 68) only refers to common carriers bij land for hire, its provisions will apply to contracts for the carriage of goods partly by land and partly by water (n). Consequently, in such a case, the carrier will not be liable for the loss of gold, silver, precious stones, pictures, bank notes, clocks, glass, china, silks, title deeds, and other valuables which exceed 101. in value, unless their value be declared at the time of their being delivered to the carrier, and a higher charge be paid if demanded.

A railway company is liable for the loss or injury to any Liability for goods or animals carried by them, when such loss or injury

negligence. is occasioned by the negligence of the company or its ser

[ocr errors]

(2) 34 & 35 Vict. C. 78 (The Railways Regulation Act, 1871), 8. 12; Doolan v. Midland Railway Co., 2 App. Cas. 792.

(m) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31 (The Railway and Canal Traffic Regulation Act, 1854), 8. 7; extended by 26 & 27 Vict. c. 92 (The Rail.

way Clauses Act, 1863), 8. 31.

(n) Pianciani v. The London and S. W. Rail. Co., 18 C. B. 226; Le Conteur v. The London and S. W. Rail. Co., 6 B. & S. 961; Baxendale v. The Great Eastern Rail. Co., L.R., 4 Q. B. 244.


Shipmasters' rights and lien.

vants, notwithstanding any notice or condition given or made by the company with the object of limiting its liability (0). This rule will hold good in the case of goods or animals carried on board steamers used by railway companies (P).

CASE. The plaintiff was an English subject, and the defendants were an English railway company authorized to work steamers between Boulogne and Folkestone. The plaintiff took a ticket at the defendant's office in Boulogne for a through journey from Boulogne to London via Folkestone. On the ticket were each passenger is allowed 120 lbs. of luggage free of charge

.. "The company is not liable for luggage of the passenger travelling by this through ticket of greater value than 61.” The plaintiff's box when being transferred from the boat to the train fell into the sea, owing to the negligence of the company's servants, and the contents were damaged to the amount of 731. Held, the company was liable for the loss, the condition on the ticket being void (9).

$ 70. A shipmaster has the same rights, liens, and remedies to recover his wages as a common seaman (»). He has a lien on the vessel and her freight for his wages, and also for any necessary or usual disbursements which he has made on the vessel's account (8). The shipmaster's claim will

s have priority over that of a mortgagee (t), even though he be a part owner (u), or though he be a party to the mortgage (v); but not over a claim for necessaries (w).

Gross misconduct on the part of a shipmaster, for instance, habitual drunkenness during the voyage, will entail a forfeiture of his wages (w). So the owners can

() 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7. Vict. c. 10, s. 10).

(P) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 119, s. 16; (t) The Mary Ann, L. R., 1
Cohen v. South Eastern Rail. Co., A. & E. 8.
Ex. D. 253 (C. A.); see “Case" (u) The Feronia, L. R., 2 A. & E.
at end of this g.

(9) Cohen v. South Eastern Rail. (v) The Eugènie, L. R., 4 A. & E.
Co., 2 Ex. D. 253 (C. A.).

123 ; see Ch. XIII. pp. 148, 149.
(r) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 191; (u) The Jenny Lind, L. R., 3
The City of Mobile, L. R., 4 A. & E. A. & E. 529; see “Cases" (1) at

end of this $.
(The Admiralty Act, 1861 (24 (x) The Macleod, 5 P. D. 254.

Forfeiture of wages for misconduct.


[ocr errors]

deduct from his wages compensation for any losses caused by his misconduct or negligence (y).

A shipmaster is not at liberty to trade on his own Master tradaccount. In the event of his doing so, he cannot claim .

ing. the profits, which indeed the owner can retain, if paid to him (s). Further, the master will not be entitled to premiums arising out of transactions he enters into in his capacity of master (a).

An action for wages, &c. can be brought by a shipmaster in the county court, unless the claim exceed 1507. (6).

The appointment and removal, subject to a reasonable Appointment notice, for insubordination or any other cause, of a master of a ship

and removal of a ship is vested in the owners (c). But the Court of master. Admiralty has power to remove a shipmaster when necessary, and to appoint another master in his place (d).

The same power is vested in any naval court, abroad or on the high seas (e).

CASES. 1. A master and part owner of a foreign ship ordered ne ssaries for the vessel. The necessaries were supplied, and the master became liable for the payment of the price of them. Held, that the persons who supplied the necessaries were entitled to be paid for them out of the proceeds of the vessel and freight in priority to a claim of the master for wages and disbursements on account of the ship (S).

2. A master of a ship gave part of his personal services to C. for a stipulated sum. This sum was paid by C. to the shipowner. Held, the master could not recover the sum from the owner (9).

3. A shipmaster when at the Cape of Good Hope, in consequence of

(y) The Repulse, 4 No. Cas. 166, (6) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, 8. 3. 169; The New Phænix, 2 Hagg. (c) Creen v. Wright, 1 C. P. D. 420.

691 ; The Marina, 50 L. J., P. 33; (z) Gardner v. M'Cutcheon, 4 29 W. R. 508. Beav. 534; Thompson v. Havelock, (d) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 240. i Camp. 527; see “Cases” (2) at (e) Ib. s. 263. end of this g.

(f) The Jenny Lind, L. R., 3 (a) Diplock v. Blackburn, 3 Camp. A. & E. 529. 43; see “Cases" (3) at end of this (9) Thompson V. Havelock, 1 $; Shallcross v. Oldham, 2 Johns. & Camp. 527. H. 609.

« ПретходнаНастави »