Ships :

66

(i.) C. A.-Bill of lading.-Where master signs bill of lading of goods weight, contents, and value unknown," stating that the goods were shipped in good order and condition, if the goods arrive damaged, the onus of proof lies on the shipowner to free himself from liability.-The Peter der Grosse, 34 L.T. 749.

(ii.) Q. B. Diy.-Bill of Lading.-L. arranged to ship goods for plaintiff to sell on commission, drawing bills on plaintiff for the purchase, the documents of title being hypothecated to plaintiff to meet the bills. After shipment of a cargo L. failed, and his liquidator handed the bill of lading to defendants to whom plaintiff under protest paid value of cargo. Held that plaintiff had a good equitable title to the bill of lading and was entitled to recover the money paid by him and damages for detention of the bill of lading.-Lutcher v. Comptoir, d'Escompte de Paris, 34 L.T. 798.

(iii.) P. C.—Bill of lading-Conditions.-By a bill of lading it was provided that goods should be "delivered from the ship's deck where the ship's responsibility shall cease, at the port of M., unto the G. Railway Company, and by them to be forwarded to T., and at the aforesaid station delivered to Messrs. M. & Co. . . No damage that can be insured against will be paid for, nor will any claim whatever be admitted unless made before the goods are removed." Held that the removal referred to was from the railway at T., that the condition covered latent damage, and that under the circumstances plaintiff could not recover; also that the bill of lading, having been made in England by an English master, was a contract governed by English law.-Moore v. Harris, L.R. 1, App. 318; 34 L.T. 519; 24 W.R. 887.

(iv.) Q. B. Div.-Bill of Lading-Exception of Fire.-Held that an exception in bill of lading of "fire on board" did not exempt the shipowners from contribution in general average in respect of injury to goods by water used to extinguish a fire.-Schmidt v. Royal Mail Steamship Company, 45 L.J. Q.B. 646.

(v.) P. D. & A. D.-Carrier.-When there is unreasonable delay in delivery of goods through negligence of carrier by sea, the owner or assignee of the bill of lading is entitled to recover as damages the difference between the market price at the time when the goods arrived and at the time when they ought to have arrived.-The Parana, 35 L.T. 32.

(vi.) C. A.-Carrier.-A carrier does not insure against an act of nature which is irresistible, i.e., not preventible by reasonable precaution, nor against defects in the thing carried; a shipowner is not, like a common carrier, liable as an insurer of goods bailed to him for carriage. Decision of C.P. Div. (L.R. 1, C.P.D. 19; 45 L.J. C.P. 19; 33 L.T. 731; 24 W.R. 237) overruled.-Nugent v. Smith, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 423; 45 L.J. C.P. 697; 34 L.T. 827.

66

(vii.) C. P. Div.-Charter-party.-B. & Co. tendered to captain of a foreign ship a charter-party not containing provision for detention in loading; on captain's refusal, B. & Co. obtained from defendant (who had no notice of the charter) an undertaking to load in ten working days, signed on account of the Bebside Colliery," whereupon the captain accepted the charters. Held upon the facts that there was a valid contract between the captain and the defendant personally not as agent.-Weidner ▾. Hoggett, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 533.

(viii.). B. Div.-Charter-party.-Plaintiff chartered a ship from defendant for 12 months "after her present voyage;" on completion of the voyage, she was detained as unseaworthy by the Board of Trade, but was repaired, and tendered to plaintiff about 3 months after the time stipulated. Held that plaintiff was entitled to rescind the contract.-Tully v. Howling, 45 L.J. Q.B, 756; 24 W.R. 815,

(ix.) Q. B. Div.-Charter-party.-A cargo was shipped to T. in Sea of Asof, or so near thereto as the ship could safely get; freight to be paid in London against certificate of right delivery of cargo; the sea being blocked with ice till ensuing spring captain discharged cargo at 30 miles distance from T. Held under the circumstances of the case, that delivery was not within the terms of the charter party and the shipholder was not entitled to the freight.-Metcalfe v. Britannia Ironworks Co., L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 613.

(x.) C. P. Div.-Charter-party-Demurrage.-The arrival of a ship, from which time demurrage begins, must be dated according to the custom of the port, with regard to which evidence is admissible.-Steamship Company "Norden" v. Dempsey, 24 W.R. 984.

(xi.) Ex. Div.—Charter-party—Demurrage.—Charter party provided that plaintiffs' ship should "load in regular turn " a cargo to be supplied by defendants: through their default one turn was lost, and ship was detained by harbour-master because of storms: Held that plaintiff was entitled to demurrage in respect of such detention.-Jones v. Adamson, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 60; L.J. 45, Ex. 64; 35 L.T. 287.

(xii.) H.

L.-Charter-party-Insurance.-Held that charter-party may provide for prepayment of part of freight, and in such case the remainder may be subject of insurance by the shipowner.-Allison v. Bristol Marine Insurance Co., L.R. 1, App. 209; 34 L.T. 809; 24 W.R. 1037.

(xiii.) P. D. & A. D.-Collision-Limitation of liability. In a cause of damage a vessel was released from arrest on payment into court of amount of her owner's liability as limited by statute; the vessel was subsequently pronounced solely to blame, and this decision was confirmed on appeal. The Court decreed limitation of limitation of liability, but did not order the amount in court to be transferred to the limitation of liability suit.-The Sisters, L.R. 1 P.D. 281; 35 L.T. 36.

(xiv.) P. D. & A. Div.-Collision—Lis alibi pendens.-The Cattarina Chiazzaro was arrested in Ireland in a cause of damage arising from a collision, but was released on bail and came to England, and was again arrested in an action in rem commenced with regard to the same collision: the Court ordered release of the ship and stay of proceedings.-The Cattarina Chiazzaro, L.R. 1, P.D. 368.

(xv.) C. A.-Collision-Negligence.-A steamer, with sails, running through a roadstead, onght at all times to have a look-out, besides the captain on the bridge. The Glannibanta, The Transit, L.R. 1, P.D. 283; 34 L.T. 934; 24 W.R. 1033.

(xvi.) C.A.-Collision-Negligence-Speed-Light.-A steamer must not run at full speed on a dark night near the coast: a vessel is not generally bound to show a light to a vessel following her.-The City of Brooklyn, L.R. 1, P.D. 276; 34 L.T. 932; 24 W.R. 1056.

(xvii.) C. A-Damage to pier.-A shipowner is not liable under the Harbours, Docks, and Piers' Clauses Act, 1847, s. 74, for damage to a pier caused by a wrecked and abandoned vessel being driven against it by stress of weather-River Wear Commissioners ▼. Adamson, L.R. 1, Q.B.D. 546; 35 L.T. 118; 24 W.R. 872.

(xviii.) C. P. Div.-Detention for unseaworthiness. Neither the complaint to Board of Trade under Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, nor the Surveyor's report as to condition of ship, need state that she cannot proceed to sea without danger to life: it is sufficient if this fact can be reasonably inferred.-Lewis v. Gray, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 452; 45 L.J. C.P. 720; 34 L.T. 421.

(xix.) C. P. Div.--Master-Dismissal-Contract.-A master mariner accepted command of a ship under a written contract of hiring to effect that salary shou'd be at the rate of £180 per annum, to cease on the day he should

be required to give up command: Held that he could not be dismissed without reasonable notice.-Green v. Wright, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 591. (xx.) C. A.—Necessaries.-The master of a foreign vessel at Quebec obtained money for necessaries for his ship by a Bill of Exchange drawn upon shipbrokers in London. the bill having been accepted and paid: Held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain an action by the acceptors against the ship for the amount.-The Anna, L.R. 1, P.D. 253; 34 L.T. 895.

(xxi.) P.D. & A. Div.-Pleading.-Where defendant admits liability, a claim for limitation thereof under Merchant Shipping Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vic. c. 63,) s. 54, may be made by counterclaim instead of by separate limitation of liability suit.-The Clutha, 35 L.T. 36.

(xxii.) P. D. & A. Div. -Salvage-Inequitable Agreements.-A wrecked crew having taken refuge on a rock, were in imminent danger; in answer to signals of distress, a steamship of plaintiff's came up, and the master refused to rescue the crew for less than £4000, and an agreement to that effect was signed by the master of the wrecked ship: the Court set aside the agreement as inequitable, and awarded £1,800.-The Medina, L.R. 1, P.D. 272; 45 L.J. P.D. & A. 81; 34 L.T. 918.

xxiii.) P. D. & A.-Salvage. In cases of life salvage, cargo separately salved is liable under Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 458, to contribute to reward of life salvors.-Cargo ex Schiller, 35 L.T. 97.

(xxiv.) C. A.-Salvage-Queen's Ship.-The commander and crew of a Queen's ship are entitled to remuneration for salvage, but not to impose terms; quare, whether they can enter into an agreement with the master of a wrecked ship as to amount of salvage. A Bombay Government ship is in these respects on the same footing as a Queen's ship.-Cargo ex Woosung, L.R. 1, P.D. 260; 35 L.T. 8.

(xxv.) P. D & A. Div.-Wages and disbursement.-Master of a ship, in order to prevent arrest and detention of ship, gave a bond in respect of a collision caused by his negligence, in an action of wages and disbursement brought by him against the vessel: Held that the amount of the penalty must be retained in court to answer any claim against the master under the bond.-The Limerick, L.R. 1 P.D. 292.

Solicitor:

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Articled Clerk.-Where a clerk, articled for three years, after having served 21 months, was absent from illness for 16 months, and afterwards served 13 months more: Held that he would not be examined, but must enter into fresh articles for six months.-Ex parte Digby, 45 L.J.Ch. 692.

(ii.) Q. B. Div.-Costs.-33 & 34 Vic., c. 28, s. 4.-An agreement for a fixed sum as costs under Attorney and Solicitors' Act, 1870, s. 4, must be in writing and signed by solicitor and client.-Regina v. Munro, Re Lewis, 24 W.R. 1017.

(iii.) P. D. & A. Div.-Proctor.-Appearances in the Arches Court must be entered by solicitors, who are also proctors of the Arches, duly qualified and admitted.-Crisp v. Martin, L.R. 1 P.D. 302.

Telegraph:—

(i.) Q. B. D.-Purchase by Government-Compensation.-In calculating the compensation to be paid under the Telegraph Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vic., c. 110), s. 8, sub. sec. 7, to officers of an undertaking purchased by Government, fixed allowance for travelling expenses must be taken into consideration.-Regina v. Postmaster General, 45 L.J.Q.B. 609; 35 L.T.

241.

(ii.) Q. B. Div. Purchase by Government-Compensation. The S. & D. Railway Co. undertook to complete their works, including telegraphs, and to lease their liue to the S. W. Railway Co., who agreed to pay them a

percentage on gross receipts from traffic: Held that by this agreement the S. & D. Co. had parted with their " beneficial interest" in the telegraphs, and were not entitled to compensation under the Telegraph Acts.-Regina v Lord Coleridge, 45 L.J. Q.B. 649; 34 L.T. 752.

Title :

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.-Adverse Possession.-By a private Act of Parliament in 1833, proposed streets, roads, and squares delineated on a plan were vested in Commissioners with full powers of lighting, paving, &c.: several plots of land described on the plan, and on which streets, &c., were delineated, had previously been sold to A., who continued to occupy the same till 1867 as arable land, when the Commissioners gave him notice of their intention to take possession of the streets, &c.: Held that A. was entitled to an injunction to restrain them from so doing.—Mackett v. Herne Bay Commissioners, 35 L.T. 202.

Trade Mark:

(i.) C. A.-Infringement.-Injunction refused to restrain defendant from advertising his machines as "Singer" machines, his advertisements always stating that the machines sold by him were manufactured by himself, and the word "Singer" not being placed upon the machines.-Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 434; 45 L.J. Ch. 490; 34 L.T. 858; 24 W.R. 1023.

(ii). Ch. Div. M. R.-Interim injunction.—Where it was not proved that manufacturer had contracted to supply cigars of a particular brand exclusively to plaintiff, an injunction was refused to restrain manufacturer's London agent from selling cigars under same label as plaintiff.—Hirsch v Jones, 45 L.J. Ch. 364; 35 L.T. 228.

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Registration-38 d 39 Vict., c. 91.-A mere word cannot be registered under the Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875.-Re Stephens, 24 W.R. 963.

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Registration-38 & 39 Vict., c. 91.-The Court has no power to interfere with the direction of the Commissioners of Patents as to advertisements. nor to order insertion of a name on the registry without advertisement.-Re Meikle's application, 24 W.R. 1067.

Trustee :

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Appointment.-A petition for appointment of a new trusteee in place of one of unsound mind not so found and not asking for a vesting order need not be presented "in lunacy."-Re Vicker's trusts, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 112; 24 W.R. 755.

(li.) C. A.-Leaseholds-Vesting order.-On appointment of trustees after the death of surviving trustee of leaseholds, there being no legal personal representative, the Court has power under Trustee Act, 1850, s. 34, to make a vesting order.-Dalgleish's Trusts (L.R. 1, Ch. D. 46; 45 L.J Ch. 68; 24 W.R. 53) dissented from.-Re Rathbone, L.R. 2, Ch. D. 483; 45 L.J. Ch. 531; 24 W.R. 566.

Vendor and Purchaser:

(i.) C. A.-Copyholds.-On sale of copyholds, the vendors contracted to give such title as they possessed to extend over 20 years, the purchaser to prepare conveyance and surrender at his own expense: the vendors bad only a complete equitable title. Held that the purchaser was entitled to a surrender of the legal estate, all necessary fines to be paid by vendors. Whitely v. Taylor, 35 L.T. 187.

(ii). Q B. Div.-Estoppel.-Plaintiff paid deposit in respect of a purchase of leasehold premises under an agreement signed by the auctioneer on behalf of the "vendor." Plaintiff received abstract of title and made requisitions thereon, but afterwards declined to complete, on the ground that the

contract was void for insufficient description of parties. Held that plaintiff was estopped from recovering the deposit.--Thomas v. Brown, 35 L.T. 237. (iii.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Specific Performance-Mistake.-Where the purchaser of a piece of land after acceptance of vendor's title under a special contract precluding enquiry discovered aliunde that the land was his own property: Held that completion of the purchase could not be enforced.Jones v. Clifford, 24 W.R. 979.

Wager:

(i.) C. A.-H. & B. deposited £50 each with N., and agreed that £100 should be paid to H. if his horse trotted 18 miles within an hour, if not then to B. The horse having trotted the distance within the time, Held that B. was entitled to demand back his money from N., the transaction being not a contribution towards a prize within 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, s. 18, but a simple wager.-Batson v. Newman, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 573.

Water:

(i.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Monopoly -The R. Waterworks Co. empowered by Act of Parliament exclusively to supply R. transferred their property to the S. Co. and ceased to act. Held that the R. Co. though existing was not "able and willing" within Public Health Act. 1875, s. 52, and the 8. Co. was not entitled to supply water, and that neither Co. could claim monopoly under the Act.-Richmond Waterworks Co. v. Vestry of Richmond, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 82 45 L.J. Ch. 441; 34 L.T. 481,

(ii.) App. Div. Ct.-Navigation Acts.-Held that a tanner who threw rubbish into a brook four miles from its junction with the river Aire, could not be convicted of breach of the Aire and Calder Navigation Act (14 Geo. III., c. 96), s. 97.-Smith v. Barnham, 34 L.T. 774.

(iii. H. L-Riparian owners.-A canal company with statutory power to purchase and hold land may restrain such extraordinary and unreasonable user by upper riparian owner of stream flowing through land so held by them as would interfere with the supply of water to the canal, or their rights as riparian owners, and that diverting water for supply of neighbouring town was extraordinary and unreasonable user.-Swindon Waterworks Co. v. Berks Canal Co., 45 L.J. Ch. 638; 33 L.T. 513; 24 W.R. 284. Will:

(i.) Ch. Div.-Accumulation.-Testator bequeathed £12,000 upon trust to purchase an advowson to which trustees should nominate whom they should think proper: subject to this trust the advowson was to be in trust for A. till he should have a benefice worth £1,000 per annum, or die until the purchase the fund was to accumulate for twenty-one years, or till he should have a benefice of £1,000 per annum, or die, and then the whole or such part as should not have been applied, was to belong to A. absolutely: Held that A. was not entitled to immediate transfer of the fund-Gott v. Nairne, 35 L.T. 209.

(ii.) C. A.—Annuity-Abatement.-Testatrix gave life annuities, and directed a fund to be set apart to answer them; she bequeated her residue, including the fund," when and so soon as such annuities shall respectively cease to J.; the estate was insufficient, and the legacies and annuity fund were apportioned by the Court on the death of one of the annuitants. Held, that J. could take nothing till payment in full of the legacies and annuities.-Re Tootal's estate, L.R. 2 Ch.D. 628; 24 W.R. 1031.

(iii) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-Annuity-Arrears.-Testator charged annuity on lands in Jamaica, the lands being deteriorated and yielding no income, arrears of large amount were owing to the annuitant at her death: Held that the first receipts of the lands were payable to the representatives of the annuitants; the Statute of Limitations does not apply to Jamaica.Pitt v. Lord Dacre, 24 W.R. 943.