CHARTERER. SUBJECTS OF CASES. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 4, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 31, 39, 40-Collision, No. 17-Marine Insurance, No. 23-Necessaries, No. 3. CHARTER-PARTY. 1. Advances for disbursements-Indorsement on bills of lading-Insurance-Right to recover back.-A charter-party stipulating "sufficient cash for ship's disbursements to be advanced the master against freight, subject to interest, insurance, and 2 per cent. commission; and the master to endorse the amount so advanced upon his bills of lading," entitles the shipowner to rely upon an insurance of advances so made being effected by charterers, who, by the charter-party stipulate for and receive the right to charge the premium, and in case of the loss of the ship on her voyage the neglect to insure will preclude the charterers from recovering back the advances. (H. of L. Sc. App.) Watson and Co. v. Shankland and others ..page 115 31 2. Breach of contract to receive cargo-Other vessels engaged-Rise in price of goods-Damages.— Where, by a charter-party, it is agreed that the shipowner shall have a ship ready at a certain time to receive a cargo for a foreign port, and the shipowner fails in the performance of his contract, and in consequence thereof the charterer is obliged to charter other vessels at a higher rate, and to pay a higher price for his cargo, the price having risen during the delay occasioned by the shipowner's default, the charterer is entitled to recover as damages against the shipowner the loss sustained by the chartering of the other vessels and the difference in the price of the cargo, provided that the shipowner does not show that the cargo has by reason of the rise in price become of greater value in the foreign port. (Ex.) Featherstone v. Wilkinson................... 3. Charterer - Demurrage Cesser of liability— Cargo loaded-Lien for freight and demurrage.— Where a charter-party between shipowner and charterers provides a number of loading days and the rate of discharge per working day, that ten days on demurrage for all like days above the said days shall be paid at a specified rate per day, and that the charterer's liability shall cease when the ship is loaded, the captain or owner having a lien on cargo for freight and demurrage, the demurrage days mentioned include such days at both the port of loading and the port of discharge, and the charterer's liability for all demurrage at the port of loading ceases on the ship being loaded. (Ex. Ch. from Q.B.) Kish v. Cory; Francesco v. Massey... 4. Demurrage-Shipowner's lien-Detention beyond demurrage days.-Semble, the shipowner's lien for demurrage includes a claim for damages caused by detention beyond the demurrage days. (Ex. Ch. from Q.B.) Kish v. Cory 5. Warranty-Ship expected to be at a port.Where, by a charter-party, it is expressed that a ship "is expected to be at" a port on a given date, these words are in a nature of a warranty that the ship will be at the port named on that date, and an action is maintainable for a breach of that warranty. (C.P.) Corkling v. Massey... 18 6. Warranty-Ship "expected to be at a port"Breach-Plea of knowledge of plaintiffs as to ship's engagements.-A plea that at the time of making the above agreement, the ship was engaged upon certain voyages, as was well known to the plaintiff, and that the charter-party was made subject to the condition that the ship 593, 594n. 593 1. Breach of regulations-Excuse of prior collision -Responsibility for prior collision to be considered. Where a ship seeks to excuse her failure to comply with the sailing regulations and with a seaman-like precaution, by showing that such a failure was in consequence of her being disabled in a prior collision, it is material to inquire whether the prior collision was due to her default, the result of inevitable accident. Semble, if the prior collision be due to the default of the ship so seeking excuse, and if her subsequent failure to comply as aforesaid contribute to the collision proceeded for, she will be to blame therefor (Priv. Co.) The Kiobenhavn or was 304 213 2. Crossing ships-Sailing ships-Closehauled— Luffing-Sailing Rules, Arts. 12 & 18.-Where a ship close hauled is bound to keep her course luffing as close to the wind as she can without losing headway is not a deviation within Article 18 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, such as will render her liable for a collision with another vessel, whose duty it is to keep out of her way. (Priv. Co.) The Aimo; The Amelia 96 3. Crossing ships - Steamships — Taking pilots— Special circumstances-Sailing Rules, Arts. 14 & 19. Two vessels bearing down at the same time from different directions upon a well-known pilot station to take pilots on board are to be treated as crossing vessels within the meaning of Art. 14 of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, if their courses, if continued, would intersect; and the fact of their seeking pilots at the same place is not such a special circumstance within the meaning of Art. 19 as will take them out of the operation of the rule requiring that the ship which has the other on her own starboard hand shall keep out of the way of the other. (P. C. Affirming Adm. Ct. Vol. p. 475). The Ada; The Sappho 4. Crossing ships Steamships Taking pilotsKeeping course-Sailing Rules, Arts. 14, 18, 19.— Where a vessel is approaching a pilot station to take a pilot, and has, as regards another vessel doing the same thing, the right to keep her course she has a right to keep sufficient headway on her to give her steerage way, so as to get on her proper course after taking a pilot, and is not bound within Art. 16 to stop and reverse. The other vessel is bound to stop and let her take her pilot or to take some other means of avoiding her. (P. C.) The Ada; The Sappho...... 5. Crossing ships-Steamships-"Keeping out of way" -Porting-Stopping &c.—Sailing Rules, Art. 14. -Art 14. of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea, which provides that "if two vessels under steam are crossing so as to involve risk of SUBJECTS OF CASES. ..page 264 collision the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other," is not to be construed so that "keeping out of the way" means in all cases porting; a vessel may within the meaning of that article keep out of the way by stopping, or by going ahead, or by starboarding, or by porting, or by going astern, as the circumstances of the case may require. (Priv. Co.) The Nor 6. Damage by salvor-Gross negligence-Liability. -Where damage is inflicted upon a ship by another engaged in rendering salvage services to the former, the Court of Admiralty regards the negligence of the salvor less severely than it does the negligence of a vessel wholly unconnected with the injured vessel, but will condemn the salvor in the damage where he has been guilty of gross negligence and want of proper navigation. (Adm.) The C. S. Butler; The Baltic 7. Danger of Collision-Wrong manœuvre-Liability -A vessel which, having performed her own duty, is thrown into immediate danger of collision by the wrongful act of another is not to be held liable if at that moment she adopts a wrong manœuvre. (Priv. Co.) The Nor 8. Fog-Ferry boats-Crossing river-Liability for damage. A steam ferry boat continuing to cross and recross the river Mersey during a dense fog takes upon herself the responsibility incident to such a course, and is not entitled to set up public convenience against the probability of loss of life and property; but she will be liable for any damage done to other vessels with which she may come into collision, provided those vessels take the precautions required by law to warn her of their position. (Adm.) The Lancashire 9. Fog-Steamship-Duty to anchor-Liability.Where a steamship, whilst in a good and wellknown anchorage ground, enters a dense fog, it is her duty to anchor at once; and if she neglects to do so, and continues her course, she will be to blame for a collision ensuing, provided that the other vessel has done all that the law requires. (Adm.) The Otter 10. Fog Signal-- Bell - Horn -Sailing ship.Where a sailing vessel in motion during a thick fog, instead of blowing a fog horn rings a bell, there is a presumption that the failure to blow the fog horn contributes to the collision, and, as the burden of showing that it was in no degree occasioned by that failure lies upon the sailing vessel, it is impossible to rebut the presumption. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) The Steamer Pennsylvania 11. Inevitable accident-Plea of-Onus of proofDuty to begin.-In a cause of collision, where the defendants plead inevitable accident alone, it lies upon the plaintiff to show a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants, and the plaintiffs must therefore begin. (Adm.) The Abraham... 12. Inevitable accident-Duty to keep courseDisabled ship unable to keep out of way-Sailing Rules, Art. 18.-Where it is the duty of a ship to keep out of the way of another, but she is unable to do so by reason of being disabled in a former collision, and the other ship, being unaware of her disabled condition, continues her course, under Article 18, a collision ensuing is the result of inevitable accident. (Priv. Co.) The Aimo; The Amelia 13. Launch-Reasonable precaution-Onus of proof. -It is the duty of those who launch a vessel to do so with the utmost precaution, and to give such notice as is reasonable and sufficient, according to local circumstances, to prevent injury 237 264 202 208 378 34 96 230 15. Launch · Notice of River Mersey. · In the River Mersey to give notice of a launch taking place it is customary to have the ship dressed in flags an hour or more before high water (about which time the launch takes place); to have tugs, one at least also dressed in flags, plying about some time before the launch in front of the yard where the ship is lying; and there are usually a number of small boats lying off ready to pick up timber when the ship comes away. (Adm.) Id. 230 16. Liability-Collision caused by negligence of third ship.-Where a steamship, in order to avoid collision with another ship, is obliged by the wrongful act of that other ship to take measures which bring her into collision with a third ship, without any negligence on her own part, the Court of Admiralty will not hold her responsible for the damage to the injured vessel. Semble, that the owners of the injured vessel should proceed against the original wrongdoer. (Adm.) The Thames... 512 17. Liability in rem-Ship chartered-Crew charterers' servants.-A ship, chartered by her owners so that the whole control and management of ship and crew are vested in the charterers, is liable in a proceeding in rem for damage done to another ship by the negligence of her crew, although they are the charterers' servants. (Adm.) The Lemington 18. Lights-Duty of vessel at anchor-Trimming lamp no excuse.-It being the duty of a vessel at anchor to carry a riding light always visible, no such excuse as that of taking the lamp down to be trimmed can be admitted, if the absence of the light brings about a collision. (P.C.) The C. M. Palmer; The Larnax 19. Lights-Distance visible-Deficiency-Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17-Infringment -Liability. A ship carrying side lights, which are visible only at the distance of about a mile, instead of at a distance of two miles as required by the regulations, infringes those regulations so as to make her liable to be deemed in fault under the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17. (Adm.) The Magnet....... 475 94 478 20. Light-Deficiency-Distance visible-Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17-Liability.-Semble, that a ship carrying such lights must be deemed in fault, whether the deficiency of the light did or not contribute to the collision. (Adm.) Id...... 478 21. Lights-Obscuring of—Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, sect. 17-Liability.—Semble, that where lights are so fixed that they are partly obscured from a particular point right ahead by the catheads of a ship carrying them, but are visible both above and below the catheads, there is no such infringement within the statute as will render the ship liable in a collision with another ship approaching broad on the starboard bow of the former. (Adm.) The Duke of Sutherland......... 478 22. Lights-Screens-Shorter than regulation-Merchant Shipping Act 1873-Infringement.—The regulation as to the length of the screens of a SUBJECTS OF CASES. ship's side lights, being for the purpose of preventing those lights from being seen across the bows of the ship carrying them, and being merely subsidiary for the purpose of securing the visibility of each distinct light, a ship carrying screens shorter than those required by the regulations is not guilty of any infringement within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, if the lights are not in fact seen across her bows, and it is shown that by reason of the construction of the ship she could not have carried larger screens with safety. (Adm.) The Fanny M. Carvill page 478 23. Lights-Screens-Shorter than regulationMerchant Shipping Act 1873-Infringement.-A ship carrying her side lights with screens shorter than required by the regulations, is not to be deemed in fault if the shortness of the screens could not by any possibility have contributed to the collision. (P.C. from Adm.) Id.... 24. Lights-Screens-Shortness of-Peculiar build of ship-Merchant Shipping Act 1873-Special circumstance.-Semble, that the peculiar build of a ship requiring her side light screens to be shorter than provided in the regulations, is not a "circumstance of the case making a departure from the regulations necessary," within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17. (P.C. from Adm.) Id. 25. Lights-Overtaking ship-Duty of overtaken 26. Look-out-Report of light-Reply-Duty of look- VOL. II., N.S. 565 565 523 193 454 454 29. Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17-Regulations for preventing collisions-Infringement— Both ships to blame.-Although a ship must be deemed in fault for an infringement of the regulations preceding but not occasioning the collision under the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17, she is not necessarily wholly in fault; but if the other ship has been guilty of negligence, or a breach of the regulations, the latter will also be held to blame, and the damages divided between them. (P.C.) Id. ..page 454 30. Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17-Regulations for preventing collisions—Infringement— Materiality to the case.-A ship, to be deemed in fault under the Merchant Shipping Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 85), sect. 17, for having infringed any of the regulations for preventing collisions, must have infringed those regulations in such a manner that the infringement is material to the case before the court, and is such as might by possibility have caused or contributed to the particular collision; a mere infringement which by no possibility could have anything to do with the collision will not render the ship liable. (Adm.) The Magnet, The Duke of Sutherland, The Fanny M. Carvill 478 31. Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17-Regulations for preventing collisions-Infringement— Liability.-To render a ship liable to be deemed in fault under the Merchant Shipping Act 1873, sect. 17, for an infringement of the regulations for preventing collisions, the infringement must be one having some possible connection with the collision in question; a mere infringement, which by no possibility could have anything to do with the collision, will not render the ship liable. (P.C. from Adm.) The Fanny M. Carvill......... 565 32. Moorings-Insufficiency of-Duty of master— Order of port authorities-Liability of owner.—-Although it is the duty of the master of a ship to take all such precautions as a man of ordinary prudence and skill, exercising reasonable foresight, would use to avert danger and to prevent his ship doing damage to others in the circumstances in which he is placed, there is no obligation upon a master who is ordered by the authorities of the port in which his ship lies to take up a berth in a particular part of the harbour to examine the sufficiency of a buoy to which he moors his ship in that place, although that buoy may belong to a private company, if the port authorities sanction the use of the buoy, and treat it as a proper and sufficient mooring place for vessels frequenting the port. If through the insufficiency of such a buoy the ship parts from her moorings on a storm arising, the shipowner will not be responsible for damage ensuing by collision provided the master has taken other precautions sufficient under ordinary circumstances to meet the exigencies of the case. (Priv. Co.) The William Lindsay 118 33. Moorings-Parting of-Anchor-Question of seamanship-Nautical assessors.-The question whether a master should under such circumstances have let go an anchor, or whether the having an anchor ready to let go was a sufficient precaution is a question of practical seamanship upon which the Court of Appeal will be guided by the opinion of their nautical assessors. (Priv. Co.) Id....... 118 34. Onus of proof-Duty to begin-Inevitable accident-Ship at anchor.-In all causes of damage, the onus being upon the plaintiff to establish negligence against the defendant, the plaintiff must begin; and this rule applies to cases where the only defence is inevitable accident and the plaintiff's vessel is at anchor, contrary to the 2 S. SUBJECTS OF CASES. .page 208 former practice of the High Court of Admiralty. (Adm.) The Otter 35. Pilot-Duty of-Ship at anchor-Length of cable-Swinging — Helm - Sheering.-Where a ship in charge of a licensed pilot is anchored within pilotage waters, the pilot is responsible for the length of cable at which the ship rides, and it is his duty, when the ship swings to the tide, to superintend that manœuvre and to regulate the helm, and it is negligence on his part to go below before the ship is fully swung, leaving the helm amidships without orders as to its regulation; and if, through want of length of cable and of regulation of the helm, the ship sheers and so parts from her anchor in swinging during his absence, he will be alone responsible, provided that the watch on deck take the right manœuvre to counteract the sheering. (Adm. and Priv. Co.) The City of Cambridge 36. Pilot-Duty of-Ship at anchor-Parting cable -Officer of watch-Duty of.-Where a ship at anchor in pilotage waters and in charge of a licensed pilot parts her cable, the necessity for letting go another anchor is a matter within the discretion of the pilot and the manoeuvre should be directed by him; and if the pilot is below at the time, the officer of the watch will be justified before giving any orders to bring up the ship in calling the pilot on deck to take charge, provided that there be no immediate necessity for action. (Priv. Co.) Id. 193, 239 37. Practice-Admiralty court-Foreign plaintiffs -Cross cause-Security to answer judgment-Appearance-Staying proceedings-Admiralty Court Act 1861, sect. 34.-Where a cause of damage is instituted in the High Court of Admiralty against a ship, in respect of a collision in which the ship of the plaintiffs is totally lost, and the defendants institute a cross cause in personam against the plaintiffs in respect of the same collision, both parties being foreigners resident abroad, and the plaintiffs decline to give security to answer judgment in the cross cause, or to enter an appearance, the court will apply the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10, s. 34), and will order proceedings to be stayed in the principal cause until security is given in the cross cause. (Adm.) The Charkieh 38. Practice-Costs-Damage to ship by bargeCounty Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868, sect. 9.-A plaintiff proceeding without leave in a Superior Court for damage to his ship, within the body of a county, by a barge (propelled by oars only), taking judgment by default, and having his damages assessed by the sheriff at an amount under 300l., is not entitled to his costs, by reason of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868, sect. 9. (Q. B. Bail Court.) Purkis v. Flower 39. Practice--Admiralty Court-Costs-Compulsory pilotage. In a collision cause, where a defendant raises, together with other defences, that of compulsory pilotage, and his ship is found to blame, but is dismissed on the ground that the negligent act of the compulsory pilot was the sole cause of the collision, each party pays his own costs according to the practice of the High Court of Admiralty. It has never been the custom in that court to apportion the costs in such cases according to the findings on the various issues. (Adm.) The Schwann 40. Practice-Admiralty Courts-Costs-Arrrest— Reference-County Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868-Certificate.-A ship was damaged by another, outward bound, and the owners of the injured vessel, in the bona fide belief that their 239 121 226 259 damage was greater than it actually was, instituted a suit in the High Court of Admiralty and arrested the ship for a large amount, but accepted bail and released the ship at once on ascertaining their actual damage; the defendants admitted liability, and the damage was referred to the Registrar; the claim made by the plaintiff was a little over 3001., but the Registrar reduced the amount claimed by more than one third, and made no report as to costs. On application by the plaintiffs, the court certified for the costs of suit under the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868, but condemned the plaintiffs in the costs of the reference. (Adm.) Naomi...... The page 588 41. River navigation--Byelaws made by local authority-Effect of.-Byelaws made by a local authority governing the navigation of a river are to be taken as evidence of what it is the duty of vessels to do in the circumstances named therein, and although the mere breach of one or any of them will not be sufficient reason for holding a ship to blame for a collision, yet, if that breach occasions or contributes to the collision, the existence of the byelaw will afford the best reason for holding the ship violating the byelaw to be guilty of a breach of duty, and consequently to blame for the collision. (Adm.) The Raithwaite Hall... 210 42. River navigation-Byelaws-Side of River-Fog. -Where a byelaw regulating the navigation of a river prescribes the side of the river upon which a ship is to navigate going up or down the river, the observance of this byelaw is doubly necessary during a fog when vessels can only be made out at short distances; and the breach of the byelaw cannot be excused by the plea that it was usual during foggy weather to navigate on the wrong side of the river in order to insure greater safety for the vessel so doing. (Adm.) Id.. 43. River navigation-Tyne byelaws-Side of river -Crossing river.-By the byelaws in force regulating the navigation of the river Tyne (clause 17) all vessels proceeding to sea must keep to the south side of mid channel, and (clause 20) "vessels crossing the river, and vessels turning take upon themselves the responsibility of doing so safely with reference to the passing traffic;" under these byelaws a vessel outward bound coming at full speed out of the Tyne dock (on the south side of the river Tyne), and crossing the river to the north side, whether intentionally, in violation of clause 17, or unintentionally by reason of the force of the tide, is bound to use the utmost caution to avoid the passing traffic, and to contemplate before attempting to come out any contingencies, such as tide, stoppage of the traffic, &c., which may arise, and she should only cross if it can be done without risk to that traffic; if a collision occurs by want of such caution the ship will be responsible. (P.C.) The Henry Morton.... 44. River navigation-Tyne byelaws-Steamships overtaking ships.-Semble, that the 21st clause of the above byelaws, providing that when steam vessels are proceeding in the same direction, but with unequal speed, the vessel which steams slowest shall when overtaken" take certain measures to allow the overtaking steamship to pass her, applies only to a vessel overtaking and passing another actually upon the same course with itself. (P.C.) Id. 45. River navigation-Lights-Dumb barge-No duty to carry lights in the Thames.-Dumb barges in motion driving with the tide up or down the river Thames at night are not bound to carry lights. Adm.) The Owen Wallis...... 210 466 466 206 SUBJECTS OF CASES. 46. River navigation-Lights-Trinity house lighter -"Ship "-Thames Conservancy byelaws.-A Trinity House lighter, which is a vessel propelled by sails as well as oars, but is exclusively employed in the river navigation of the Thames and never goes to sea, is not a "ship" within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and is not bound to carry, when under weigh in the Thames, the lights prescribed by the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea to be carried by all sailing vessels; and, as the existing byelaws made under the Thames Conservancy Acts 1857 and 1864 (20 & 21 Vict. c. cxlvii.; 27 & 28 Vict. c. 113) contain no provision as to the lights to be carried by sailing vessels navigating the Thames, Trinity House lighters are under no obligation to carry lights when under weigh in that river. (Adm.) The C. S. Butler... page 408 47. River navigation-Dumb barge-Side of river 206 The Thames.A dumb barge coming up the river Thames on a flood tide may keep on either side of the river, and there is no obligation on her by custom or otherwise to keep in mid-channel. (Adm.) The Owen Wallis 48. River navigation-Dumb barge-SteamshipDuty to keep out of the way-The Thames.There is no duty on a dumb barge driving with the tide in the Thames to keep out of the way of a steamship; but it is the duty of the steamship to keep out of the way of the barge. (Adm.) Id. 206 49. Speed-Steamship-Sailing ship-Duty to ascertain course of latter.-When a steamer sights a sailing vessel in the night time at a distance of three miles, but, owing to the fact that the sailing vessel's lights are not visible, cannot ascertain the course of the sailing vessel, it is the duty of the steamer to slacken speed and wait to ascertain that course before adopting any decided manœuvre for the purpose of avoiding the sailing vessel. If the steamer immediately on sighting the sailing vessel adopts such a manoeuvre, as by porting, and a collision ensue without fault on the part of the sailing vessel, the steamer is alone to blame. (P.C.) The Bougainville v. The James C. Stevenson... 50. Speed-Steamships-Lights of other ship obscured-Duty to slacken speed and ascertain course.-Where a steamship is approaching another, whose exact course cannot be at once ascertained by reason of her lights being obscured by her own smoke, it is the duty of the former to take no decided step, but to slacken speed and to wait till that course is ascertained before taking any decided step to avoid the other vessel. (Priv. Co.) The Rona; The Ava ...... 182 51. Speed-Steamship-Lights-Uncertainty as to 52. Speed-Steamship-Dark night-Entering har. 478 523 182 55. Steamship-Towing ship-Sailing ship-Duty of tug-Special circumstances-Sailing rules Nos. 15 and 19.-A steamship towing another ship is within the meaning of the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea relating to steamships, and is not by reason of her incumbered condition altogether absolved from the duty of keeping out of the way of a sailing vessel; still allowances should be made, under the circumstances of each case, for the comparatively disabled condition of the incumbered steamer, and the duty of additional precaution is imposed upon a sailing ship approaching a steamer so incumbered. (P. C.) The American and The Syria 350 56. Steamship-Towing ship-Sailing ship-Duty of sailing ship-Sailing rules, Art. 18.-Where a ship is ordered by the regulations to pursue a certain course in relation to another vessel, she has a right to presume that that other vessel will do her duty, and also observe the regulations; hence a sailing ship, approaching a steamship towing another ship, has a right to hold on her course until there is immediate danger of collision, in the expectation that the steamship will observe the regulations and keep out of her way. (P. C.) Id... 350 57. Steamship-Towing ship-Negligence of tugLiability of tow-Governing power.-Where a collision takes place between a tug towing a ship and another ship, the question whether the tow is liable to make good the damage done by the negligence of the tug, depends upon the determination of the question whether the "governing power" is in the tug or in the tow. If the tug is in the service of and under the orders of the tow, the tow is answerable for the negligence of the tug as for the negligence of a servant; but if the tug is, although rendering service to the tow, not under the control of the latter, but is itself the governing power, then the tow is not liable for the negligence of the tug. (P. C.) Id. 350 Same 58. Steamship-Towing ship disabled owner-Governing power in tug-Liability of tow. Where the master of a steamship, finding another steamship belonging to the same owners with her engines disabled, undertakes, not in pursuance of any specific contract made with the master of the disabled ship, but out of his sense of duty to his employers and in the hope of obtaining salvage reward, to tow the ship home, the towing ship is not under the control of the tow, nor is the governing power in the tow, so as to render the tow responsible for the negligent acts of the tug. Nor does the fact that both ships belong to the same owners render the towed ship responsible for the acts of the tug. (P. C.) Id.... See County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction, Nos. 1, 2, 3-Damage, Nos. 1, 2, 3-Freight, No. 38-Salvage, No. 9-Towage, No. 3. 350 |