Слике страница




§ 61. Seaworthiness The ship must be seaworthy, i.e. tight and staunch, and of ship.

furnished with a suitable crew and necessaries (a), though the charter-party does not expressly require it. For in every contract for conveyance of goods by sea, there is an implied warranty on the part of the shipowner that the vessel is seaworthy. The ship must also have a pilot on board, if such be necessary by usage or the law of the country (6).

It is the duty of the owner to provide suitable ballast. But merchandise may be carried as ballast if it do not require more space than ordinary ballast would have required (c)

The proper manifest, and all documents essential to the safety of the vessel, e.g., a bill of health and a passport in time of war, must be carried; and all quarantine regulations be complied with (a).

No false papers or contraband goods may be carried.

The warranty of seaworthiness dates from the time when the intended voyage commences, and the vessel must be then fit for sea, or there will be a breach of the warranty,

(a) Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. Raym. by 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, s. 4; see 909; Steel v. State Line Steamship Ch. I. § 5, p. 7. Co., 3 App. Cas. 72; Kopitoff v. (6) Law v. Hollingsworth, 7 T. R. Wilson, 1 Q. B. D. 377; Cohn v. 160; Phillips v. Headlam, 2 B. & Ad. Davidson, 2 Q. B. D. 455 ; see 380. Cases” at end of this . Sending (c) Towse v. Henderson, 4 Ex. 890. a vessel to sea in so unseaworthy a (d) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 234 ; condition as to endanger the life of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 65; 6 Geo. 4, any person is made a misdemeanor


[ocr errors]

c. 78.

even though the vessel was seaworthy when in her port of loading (e).

CASES. 1. Iron armour plates, belonging to the plaintiff, were put on board a vessel by the servants of the owners. During rough weather one of the iron plates broke loose and went through the side of the vessel, 'which was unseaworthy, and was consequently lost. The owners were held liable for the value of the iron plate so lost (f).

2. A ship was chartered for a voyage from S. to D., she being then seaworthy. The ship loaded at S. a cargo of cement belonging to plaintiff. Before she sailed she had become unseaworthy, without any negligence on the part of the defendant, though she was seaworthy before commencing to load. Soon after sailing the ship began to leak. The wind being fair, the master kept his course for D. He was not guilty of negligence in not returning to S. The vessel foundered at sea, and the cement was totally lost. Held, the plaintiff could recover the value of the cement from the shipowners (9)

$ 62. The master is bound to provide a competent crew and Duties of the

master. equipment, including boats and life-buoys, and a suitable supply of medical stores (k). He must then with due diligence proceed to the place where the ship is to take on board her cargo, and not make an intermediate voyage (i). Further, he must pay all light dues (k), and obtain a clearance or transire, and all the requisite Custom House documents, and also the requisite certificates (1). Dock, harbour, and other dues must be paid by the master, who will be personally liable therefor (m).

(e) Cohn v. Davidson, 2 Q. B. D. 455 ; see “Cases" (2) at end of this g.

(5) Kopitoff v. Wilson, 1 Q. B. D. 377.

(9) Cohn v. Davidson, 2 Q. B. D. 455.

(h) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 292— 294 ; 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 8. 15; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, s. 4; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119, ss. 35, 43; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, s. 20.

(i) M' Andrew v. Adams, 1 Bing.
N, C. 29; Jackson v. Union Marine
Insurance Co., L. R., 10 C. P. 125;
Tully v. Howling, 2 Q. B. D. 182.

(k) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 400.

(1) Ib. ss. 19, 102, 161, 162, 318; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, 88. 16, 26, and 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, ss. 111, 145; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63, 8. 30; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 73, 6. 8.

(m) Mayor of London v. Hunt, 3 Lev. 38; Vinkestone v. Ebden, 1 Salk. 248.

As to stowage The master is responsible for the proper loading of the of cargo.

cargo, though loaded by a stevedore, unless the stevedore be employed by the shipper. But even then, if he interferes with the loading, he will be liable (n).

Again, where the charterer has the option of employing a stevedore, but he does not, the master will still be responsible for the proper stowage of the goods (o).

So, in cases where the charterers put up a ship as a general ship, a shipper of goods therein, without notice of the fact that under the charterparty the charterers appoint the stevedore, will not lose his remedies as against the master and owners for injury caused by negligent stowage

to his goods (v). Liability of

A shipmaster will be liable for any act or default on the master for acts of crew. part of the crew, in consequence of which the cargo, or

the property of the passengers, is injured. But he will not be liable for their wilful trespasses or acts beyond the scope of their ordinary employment (2). Thus, if one of the crew wilfully injure another ship, without the master's direction or privity, no action will lie against the master,

though on board at the time(r). The official It is one of the duties of the master to accurately keep log

the official log-book according to the form approved by the Board of Trade. He must enter therein as soon as practicable after the occurrence (s) all the matters specified in the Merchant Shipping Acts (t). The entries must be signed by the master, and also by the mate, or some one of the crew; and entries of illness, injury or death must (n) Swainston v. Garrick, 2 L. J.

of this s. (N. S.), Ex. 255; Blakie v. Stem- (1) Molloy, De Jure Maritimo, bridge, 6 C. B., N. S. 894; Sande- bk. ii. c. 3, S. 13. man v. Scurr, L. R., 2 Q. B. 86; (r) Bowcher v. Noidstrom, 1 Taunt. Anglo-African Co. v. Lamzed, L. R., 568. 1 C. P. 226. See § 67, pp. 105– (s) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 281. 109, as to the shipowner's liability (t) Ib. ss. 281, 244, 256; 30 & 31 as to cargo after stowage.

Vict. c. 124, 8. 4; 37 & 38 Vict. (0) The Anglo-African Co. v. Lam- c. 88, ss. 37, 54; 39 & 40 Vict. zed, L. R., 1 C. P. 226.

c. 80, s. 26 ; 34 & 35 Vict. c. 110, (p) Sandeman v. Scurr, L. R., 2 8. 5. Q. B. 86; see “ Cases" (2) at end

in addition be signed by the ship's surgeon (u). No entry cen be made of any occurrence during the voyage after twenty-four hours from the ship's arrival at her port of discharge (v).

A shipmaster displaying, without justifiable grounds, Displaying signals of distress or signals for pilots, will be liable, in signals

wrongly. the former case, to compensate any person who performs any work or sustains loss in consequence thereof, and in the latter case to pay a fine not exceeding 201. (w).

Unlawfully masking, altering, or removing any light or signal, or exhibiting any false light or signal, or unlawfully and maliciously doing anything that tends to the immediate loss or destruction of any ship in distress, is a felony (x).

As to barratry committed by a shipmaster, see Book II. Chap. V. § 148 (y).

When a change of owners takes place while the ship is New owners at sea or in a foreign port, the shipmaster will be held the agency of agent of the new owners for the purposes of the ship and the adventure, till he is either confirmed in his post or another appointed in his stead. His acts, meanwhile, will bind the new owners, provided they fall within the scope of a shipmaster's authority (). Where, owing to the incompetence or misconduct of the Authority of

a substituted master during the voyage, another is appointed in his stead by some person not the owner, such substituted master will have the same authority and rights, and be subject to the same duties as the original master (a). For instance, a bottomry bond given by a substituted master under cir



(u) See 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 284, as to penalties for offences regarding official logs.

(v) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 281.
(w) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, ss. 18, 19.
(x) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, 8. 47.
(y) Page 254.

(z) Robins v. Power, 27 L.J.,C. P. 257; see“Cases”' (3) at end of this s;


Myers v. Willis, 25 L. J., C. P.
255; 18 C. B. 886; Chapman v.
Callis, 30 L. J., C. P. 241; Trew-
hella v. Rowe, 11 East, 435.

(a) The Alexander, 1 Dod. Ad.
278; The Zodiac, 1 Hagg. Ad. 320;
The Eliza Cornish, 1 Spinks' Rep.
36; 17 Jur. 738.


cumstances of necessity, will be valid (6). Further, such a bond given to consignees of the cargo, who advanced the money for the necessary repairs, will be good, though given by a master substituted by themselves (c).

CASES. 1. The plaintiff agreed to charter a ship for twelve months after the completion of her then present voyage. After its completion, and when the plaintiff was ready to load her, the ship was detained as unseaworthy. The repairs were not completed for more than two months after the voyage was performed. Held, the plaintiff could throw up the charterparty (d). 2. A ship, chartered to load a cargo of wine for a voyage

from Oporto to London, was put up by the charterer's agents at Oporto as a general ship, without any notice that she was under charter. The plaintiff shipped some casks of wine and received bills of lading in the common form, signed by the master. The wine was stowed by a stevedore, appointed and paid by the charterer's agents, the money being ultimately repaid them by the master. The wine was improperly stowed, and leaked. Held, that the shipowners were liable (e).

3. A seaman shipped under articles to serve on a voyage to Bombay. While the ship was at Suez she was sold to the defendant. The seaman, on hearing of the sale, refused to proceed, unless his wages in arrear were paid. They were not paid, and the new master sent by the defendant to command the vessel, ultimately consented to the seaman quitting the vessel. The seaman then left, but he had worked at the vessel, with the sanction of the defendant's agent, up to leaving. Held, a contract by the defendant could be implied to pay the seaman for his work pro rata from when he knew of the change of ownership, up to his leaving the vessel (f).

$ 63. The vessel must sail at the fixed time. If no time be expressly agreed on, she must sail within a reasonable

Delay or deviation.

time (9)

(6) The Kennersley Castle, 3 Hagg. Ad. 1.

(c) The Alexander, 1 Dod. Ad. 278.

(d) Tulley v. Houling, 2 Q. B. D. 182.

(e) Sandeman v. Scurr, L. R., 2

Q. B, 86.

(f) Robbins v. Power, 27 L. J., C. P. 257.

(9) M'Andrew v. Adams, 1 Bing. N. C. 29 ; see “ Cases" (3) at end of this $; The San Roman, L. R., 5 P. C. 301.

« ПретходнаНастави »