SUBJECTS OF CASES. ping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104) to employ a pilot whilst navigating the river Thames, the general exemption continued from 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, sect. 59, and the order in council of 18th Feb. 1854, by the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sect. 353, not being overridden by sect. 379, relating to Trinity House pilotage and exempting such a ship only when not carrying passengers. Reg. v. Stanton (8 Ell. & Bl. 445), and The Earl of Auckland (Lush 164, 387), followed. (Adm.) The Moselle.......... .page 586 2. Trinity House pilotage-Outport district--Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sect. 370-" Particular provision"-Local Act-Appointment of pilotsTrinity sub-commissioners.-A Trinity House outport district by sect. 370 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104) comprises any pilotage district for the appointment of pilots within which no particular provision is made by any Act of Parliament or charter. A port for which by a local Act passed in 1852 the Corporation of the Trinity House are required to appoint subcommissioners resident at the said port to examine and certify pilots for the port, is not a port for which such particular provision is made, because the local Act merely adopts and incorporates the provisions of the general Pilotage Act (6 Geo. 4, c. 125, sect. 5, repealed but re-enacted in the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sect. 369) enacting that the said corporation are required to appoint subcommissioners at such ports or places as they may think requisite to examine and certify pilots. (Q. B.) Hadgraft (app.) v. Hewitt (resp.).... 3. Trinity House pilotage-Outport district-Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sects. 353, 379-Local act-Coasting trade exemption. The express enactment in the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sect. 379, that ships not carrying passengers, employed in the coasting trade, shall be exempted from compulsory pilotage overrides a provision in a local Act passed in 1852 that all ships navigating within a district (a Trinity outport) shall employ a licensed pilot, and such obligation is not continued by Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sect. 353, enacting that the employment of pilots shall continue compulsory in all districts in which the same was compulsory before that Act. Hadgraft (app.) v. Hewitt (resp.). 4. Trinity House pilotage-Outport-Ipswich Dock Act-Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sect. 374Coasting vessel-Exemption. The port of Ipswich, the pilotage of which is regulated by the Ipswich Dock Act (15 Vict. c. cxvi.), is a Trinity outport district, and although by the above Act (sect. 91) all ships are bound to take a pilot whilst within the district, such obligation is taken away in the case of coasting vessels not carrying passengers by the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, sect. 379. (Q. B.) Id. ..... 5. Mersey pilotage-Mersey Docks Acts Consolidation Act 1858-Pilot offering to take charge entitled to pilotage rate-Compulsion.-The Mersey Docks Acts Consolidation Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. xcii.)-providing for the pilotage of the river Mersey, and enacting (sect. 139), inter alia, that if the master of any vessel (with certain exeptions), being outward bound, "shall proceed to sea, and shall refuse to take on board or to employ a pilot, he shall pay to the pilot who shall first offer himself to pilot the same, the full pilotage rate," as if the pilot had piloted the ship, and, further, that (sect. 138) if a master requires the services of a pilot whilst his ship is lying at anchor in the Mersey, the pilot shall be paid for every day or portion of a day he shall 573 573 573 attend, the sum of five shillings; "but no such charge shall be made for the day on which such vessel, being outward bound, shall leave the river Mersey to commence her voyage -compels a master so proceeding to sea to take a pilot. (Adm. & P.C.) The City of Cambridge...page 193, 239 6. Mersey pilotage-Mersey Docks Arts-Consolidation Act 1858, sect. 138-" Proceeding to sea”Anchoring in river-Compulsion from leaving dock. Where a ship ready and about to proceed to sea leaves one of the Mersey Docks at nights in charge of a licensed pilot, and casts anchor in the river so as to be ready to cross the bar at the mouth of the river on the next morning's tide at an earlier hour than she could if she left the dock in the morning, the going into and casting anchor in the river is a step in the "proceeding to sea within the meaning of the Mersy Docks and Harbour Board Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. xcii.) sect. 139, and the employment of the pilot is compulsory under that section from the time of leaving dock, and if the ship breaks away from her moorings, and damages another vessel through the pilots sole default the owners will not be responsible. (Adm. & P. C.) Id. ......193, 239 7. Mersey pilotage-Mersey Docks Act-Consolida tion Act 1858,-"Proceeding to sea"-Anchoring in river-Extra payment to pilot-Compulsion from leaving dock-Voluntary employment. -The fact that the pilot becomes entitled, under sect. 138 of the Aet, to an extra payment of five shillings a day beyond the amount payable for compulsory pilotage, whilst employed on the ship at the requirement of the master during the time she is anchored in the river, except on the day when the ship leaves the Mersey to commence her voyage, does not alter the character of the employment during that time, so as to make it a voluntary employment or any the less compulAdm. & P. C.) Id. sory. See Collision, Nos. 35, 36-Pilot. CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. CONDITION. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 4, 32. CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE. See Bill of Lading, No. 1-Carriage of Goods, Nos. 3, 10-Marine Insurance, Nos. 6, 7, 8, 25, 26. CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 19, 20, 21, 46, 48. CONSULAR COURTS. See Jurisdiction, No. 4. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. CO-OWNERS. Breach of contract-Action for-Damage to partnership Benefit to one partner-Right of defendant to take into account.-In order to entitle a defendant in an action brought against him by partners for a breach of contract causing damage to the partnership to take into account a benefit accruing to any of the plaintiffs from such breach for the purpose of reducing the damages, such benefit must be a joint benefit accruing to the partnership; and it is immaterial for the assess 193 SUBJECTS OF CASES. ment of damages whether or no individual plaintiffs have actually benefited in other ways from the very default of the defendants for which as a partnership they are suing. Where partnerships sue for breach of contract, the damages must be confined to those sustained by the partnership; and part owners of ships are for the purpose of such an action in the same position as partners. (C.P.) Jebsen v. The East and West India Dock Company ..page 505 See Master's Wages and Disbursements, Nos. 1, 2. CORPORATION. See Dock. COSTS. See County Court Admiralty Jurisdiction, No. 4 -Interpleader - Marine Insurance, No. 34Practice, Nos. 7, 13, 14-Salvage, No. 6-Wages, No. 5. COUNTY COURTS ADMIRALTY JURIS DICTION. 1. Damage-Jurisdiction-Co-extensive with Admiralty Court as to subject matter.-The Admiralty Courts Acts (3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6; 24 Vict. c. 10, s. 7), confer upon the High Court of Admiralty of England over causes of damage arising within the body of a county the jurisdiction which that court originally possesses over such causes arising on the High seas; and the jurisdiction given to the County Courts, having admiralty jurisdiction over causes of damage, by the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts 1868 and 1869 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, s. 3, sub-sect. 3; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 51, s. 4), is as large (where the amount claimed does not exceed 300l.), as that possessed by the High Court of Admiralty. (Q. B. Bail Court.) Purkis v. Flower.... 2. Damage-Jurisdiction-Barge-Ship damaged by-Admiralty Court-County Court.-Damage to a ship by a barge (propelled by oars only), would be within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty if it occurred on the high seas, and (by the Admiralty Court Acts) if it occurred on a tidal river within the body of a county; hence the County Courts having admiralty jurisdiction would have jurisdiction over such damage. The Surah (Lush, 549) followed (Q, B. Bail Court.) Id. 3. Damage-Jurisdiction-Action against pilotAdmiralty cause.-An action against a pilot for negligence in navigating a vessel whereby it came into collision with another vessel, which it damaged, is not an Admiralty cause within the meaning of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, sect. 3, sub-sect. 3), and may therefore be brought in any County Court, though such court be not one appointed under the Act for the trial of Admiralty causes. (Ex.) Flower v. Bradley... 4. Freight-Demurrage-Breach of charter-Jurisdiction Admiralty Court-County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1869, sect. 2.-The jurisdiction given to the County Courts by the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71) sect. 3, and the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 51), sect. 2 is confined to causes within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty; and, therefore, in an action in a Superior Court on a charter-party for freight or demurrage, which is a cause not within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, a plaintiff, claiming and recovering a sum between £20 and £300, is entitled to his costs, and cannot be deprived of them by the operation of sect. 9 of the Act of 226 226 489 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), which is not applicable to such a case Simpson v. Blues (ante, vol. 1, p. 326; L. Rep. 7 C. P. 290; 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 679) approved and Cargo ex Argos (ante vol. 1, p. 519; L. Rep. 5 P. C. 134; 28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 77) dissented from. (Ex.) Gunestead v. Price and others, Fullmore v. Wait..... page 543 1. Damage to pier- Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, sect. 74-Undertakers-Maritime lien-Liability of ship in rem-Inevitable accident. The owners of a pier, who are undertakers within the meaning of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, acquire, under sect. 74 of that Act, a maritime lien in respect of any damage done to their pier by a , ship, and may proceed in rem to recover that damage in the High Court of Admiralty, and the shipowners are debarred by sect. 74 from setting up the defence of inevitable accident. (Adm.) The Merle; Dennis v. Tovell..... 2. Damages to pier-Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847-Limited Company-Undertakers-Winding-up.-Where a limited company, duly constituted by provisional order made under the General Piers and Harbours Acts 1861 and 1862, as the undertakers of a pier, within the meaning of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, is voluntarily wound-up, and its property sold by the liquidator, a purchaser of the pier has transferred to him both the property and the rights of the original undertaker, becomes the undertaker within the meaning of the last-mentioned Act, and can recover against a ship for damage done to his pier by that ship, although such damage be the result of inevitable accident. The Merle 3. Damage to sea wall-Harbour, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, sect. 74-Liability of ship.The owners of a ship which the crew have left owing to stress of weather, are answerable, under sect. 74 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (10 and 11 Vict. c. 27) for damage done to a sea wall, after the crew have left her. (Q.B.) The River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson and others 4. Steam tug-Fog-Negligently proceeding-Running ashore-Pilot in charge of ship--Contributory negligence. Where a ship in tow of a steam tug and in charge of a licensed pilot who has the control over and directs the course of both vessels, is navigating a river in a fog so dense that the banks of the river cannot be seen, and those on board the tug and ship in tow do not know in what direction they are going, it is negligence on the part of both vessels to proceed; but as it is the duty of the pilot in charge to give orders to the tug to stop so as to enable the ship in tow to come to an anchor, the neglect on the part of the pilot to give such orders is contributory negli. gence, which will preclude the owners of the 402 402 145 SUBJECTS OF CASES. sailing ship from recovering (at common law) against the owner of the steam tug in an action for negligently running the sailing ship ashore by proceeding during the fog. (P.C.) Smith and others v. The St. Lawrence Tow Boat Company page 41 Moving 5. Steam-tug-Towing ship — Control power-Master or pilot in charge.-A steam-tug towing a sailing ship directs the course of both vessels so long as no directions are given by the person in charge of the ship in tow. The steam-tug is the moving power, but it is under the control of the master or pilot on board the ship in tow. (P. C.) Id See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25– Collision-Marine Insurance, Nos. 10, 11-Pilot -Towage. DAMAGES. See Charter-party, No. 2. DAMAGE TO CARGO. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25— General Average, Nos. 1, 2—Jurisdiction, Nos. 1. 2, 3. DECK CARGO. See Marine Insurance. Nos. 52, 53. DELAY. See Marine Insurance, No. 23. DELIVERY OF CARGO. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. DEMURRAGE. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 15, 19, 29, 30Charter-party, Nos. 3, 4-County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction, No. 4. DERELICT. See Carriage of Goods, No. 88-Salvage, Nos. 10, 11, 16, 21. DESERTION. See Salvage, Nos. 10, 11, 16, 21-Wages, No. 3- See Carriage of Goods, No: 8. DISBURSEMENTS. See Master's Wages and Disbursements- DISCHARGE. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 30, 33, 34, 35, Graving Dock-Use of-Interest in land-Statute of Frauds, sect. 4--Corporation-Contract under seal. A contract for the use by shipowners of a graving dock for repairing ships belonging to a municipal corporation is not a contract concerning an interest in land, and consequently need not be in writing under the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, and such a contract being one of frequent occurrence and daily necessity need not be under seal, and though not under seal is binding on the corporation. (C.P.) Wells v. The Mayor, &c. of Kingston-upon-Hull 41 580 DOCK REGULATIONS. See Carriage of Goods, No. 15. DRUNKENNESS. See Master's Wages and Disbursements, Nos. 3, 4. ERROR OF JUDGMENT. See Master's Wages and Disbursements, No. 11. ESTOPPEL. See Carriage of Goods, No. 6-Marine Insurance, Nos. 2, 48. EVIDENCE. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 23, 24-Collision, No. 11-Marine Insurance, Nos. 32, 34- Practice, Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15-Salvage, Nos. 3, 4, 5. EXCEPTED PERILS. See Carriage of Goods, Nos, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, 40-Marine Insurance, Nos. 10, 11, 37, 38, 39. EXCESSIVE VALUATION. See Marine Insurance, No. 14. FIRE. See General Average, Nos. 1, 2—Marine Insur ance, No. 45. FOG. See Collision, Nos. 8, 9, 10, 56-Damage, No, 4 FOREIGN CONTRACT. See Sale of Ship. FOREIGN SHIP. See Sale of Ship-Wages, No. 1, 2, 5. FORFEITURE OF WAGES. See Master's Wages and Disbursements, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8-Wages, No. 3. FORGERY OF SHIPPING DOCUMENTS. See Bills of Exchange. FRAUD. See Marine Insurance, Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 18, 30, 31, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 Charter-party, No. 3-InterestMarine Insurance, Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23-Necessaries, No. 3. GENERAL AVERAGE. 1. Damage by water-Extinguishing fire—British custom.-Loss occasioned by water used to ex. tinguish fire on board ship not having hitherto been treated by British average adjusters as a general average loss, owners of goods, carried under a bill of lading providing for "average, if and, to be adjusted according to British custom," cannot recover for damage so sustained as for a general average loss; under such circumstances the question whether such a loss is by law a general average does not arise. (Ex. Ch. from Q. B.) Stewart v. The West India and Pacific Steamship Company page 32 2. Damage by water-Scuttling ship-Extinguishing Fire-General average loss.-Damage to cargo by scuttling a ship to put out a fire is the subject o Bills drawn against goods-Policy of insurance— Deposit of papers with bank-Extent of bank's lien.-Where a merchant consigns goods to this country, draws a bill of exchange against the goods, and before acceptance discounts the bill with a bank, and, in order to secure repayment, insures the goods, deposits the bills of lading and the policy with the bank together with a letter of hypothecation authorising the bank in case the bill or any other bills of his should not be accepted or paid to sell the goods and recoup themselves, but making no mention of the policy, the bank acquires no right, on the goods being destroyed by the perils insured against and on the failure of the consignor and consignee, to apply the proceeds of the policy to pay other bills drawn upon other parties by the merchant, and discounted by the bank, or to satisfy anything beyond the amount of the bill of exchange, drawn against the goods and a third person to whom the policy has been assigned can claim to have the amount over the value of the bill paid over to them by the bank. (V.C.B.) Latham v. The Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China 178 INTERPLEADER. Two or more claimants of cargo Shipowner's duty-Shipowner contesting each claim-Costs.Where there are two or more claimants of goods in the hands of a shipowner, the only way in which he can as stakeholder protect himself is by filing a bill of interpleader. If, instead of doing So, he litigates with the claimants separately, he must pay the costs of the successful claimant, who will be entitled to an inquiry as to damages. (L.JJ.) Laing v. Zeden INTERVENER. See Salvage, No. 7. IPSWICH DOCK ACT. See Compulsory Pilotage, No. 4. JETTISON. See Marine Insurance, No. 52. JURISDICTION. .page 396 1. Admiralty Court-Damage of cargo-Breach of contract before goods laden-Admiralty Court Act 1861, sect. 6.-The High Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for breach of contract under the Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), sect. 6, where the breach occurs before the goods are laden on board the vessel which under the contract afterwards carries the goods into a port in England or Wales. (Adm.) The Dannebrog 452 2. Damage to cargo-Cargo carried into English port of call-Discharged abroad-Ship returning to England-Arrest-Admiralty Court Act 1861 sect. 6-When a foreign ship carrying cargo, acting in pursuance of the contract of affreightment, which gives the option of several ports of call, English and foreign, puts into an English port of call for orders, she carries her cargo into the English port within the meaning of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), sect. 1; and though she be ordered to a foreign port, and there discharge her cargo, the Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction to entertain against her a suit by the assignees of the bills of lading of the cargo, for damage to cargo, and to arrest her on her return, after discharging, to this country. (Adm. and Priv. Co.) The Pieve Superiore ..162, 319 3. Admiralty Court-Damage to cargo-Breach of contract by master-Master part owner-Liability in rem.-Semble, the High Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction to proceed in rem against a ship for breach of contract, within the meaning of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), sect. 6, although that breach is committed by one of the part owners of the ship only (the master), and is a breach for which the other part owners would not be responsible. (Adm.) The Emilien Marie 4. Levantine Consular Court-Ship disabledAverage statement-Made up under decree of Court -Customs of Levant-Presumption as to jurisdiction. Where in an action to recover from underwriters a general average loss it appears that the ship arrives at Constantinople disabled from proceeding on her voyage, and that the British Supreme Consular Court had, on the application of the master, appointed surveyors who make recommendations as to sale of part and transshipment of the rest of the cargo, and that the court has made orders in accordance with those recommendations, and further that the court has appointed average adjusters, who investigate the various claims and make up an aver 514 SUBJECTS OF CASES. age statement in accordance with the law of the port of destination of the ship, and that the statement is registered and homologated by a decree of the court, and it further appears that the Orders in Council respecting the jurisdiction of the consular courts in the Levant expressly reserve to those courts the right to enforce customs obtaining in the Ottoman dominions, it will be taken by the court trying the action that the consular court had the jurisdiction so exercised. (C. P.) Mavro and another v. The Ocean Marine Insurance Company See County Court, Admiralty Jurisdiction, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-Sale of Ship-Salvage, No. 6. LADING. ..page 361 See Marine Insurance, Nos. 3, 7, 8. LANDING AND WAREHOUSING CARGO. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36. LANDING-STAGE. See Navigable River, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. See Collision, Nos. 13, 14, 15. LAY DAYS. See Carriage of Goods, No. 19—Charter-party, Nos. 3, 4. LIABILITY IN REM. See Collision, Nos. 17-Jurisdiction, Nos. 2, 3. LIEN. See Broker's Lien-Carriage of Goods, Nos. 30, 34, 35, 36, 39-Charter-party, Nos. 3, 4-Master's Wages and Disbursements, No. 10-Mortgagees, Nos. 1, 2-Necessaries, Nos. 1, 2, 3-Shipbuilding contract. LIFE SALVAGE. See Carriage of Goods, No. 14. See Collision, Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Ship under arrest-Payment in court in limitation suit-Release-Admission of liability,-Defendants in a collision cause, in which their ship was under arrest, having constituted a suit for limitation of liability, the court, upon the motion of the plaintiffs in the limitation suit, (defendants in the collision cause) ordered the ship to be released, on payment into court in that suit of the aggregate amount of 15l. per ton of the registered tonnage of the ship, and of a sum to cover interest and costs, and did not require that the plaintiffs in the limitation suit should admit liability before ordering the release. (Adm.) The Sisters LOOK-OUT. See Collision, No. 26. LOSS. See Carriage of Goods, No. 8-General Average, Nos. 1, 2-Marine Insurance, Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 33, 37, 38. LUFFING. See Collision, No. 2. 589 MARINE INSURANCE. 1. Abandonment - Ship - Notice - Implied acceptance of Insurers taking possession and keeping salvage Claim for-Effect of. When notice of abandonment of a ship is given to underwriters, mere silence on their part will not operate as an acceptance of abandonment; but if the underwriters, on a loss occurring, and after notice of abandonment duly given, take possession of a ship by their agent, take her to a place of safety, repair her, and detain her in their custody for an unreasonable time without giving notice to the assured that they are acting on his behalf, and that they do not accept the abandonment, their acts will amount to a constructive acceptance of abandonment; nor will the fact that the insurers think fit to libel the ship in the Admiralty Court for salvage reward affect their liability, if the assured had not interfered in the salvage suit nor taken any steps to assert his continued ownership. (Priv. Co.) The Provincial Insurance Company of Canada v. Leduc .. ..page 338 2. Abandonment-Acceptance of-Partial lossTotal loss-Estoppel-Canadian Civil Code.Acceptance of abandonment by underwriters is irrevocable, and makes a partial loss tantamount to a total loss, and the insurers are precluded from relying upon a subsequent recovery of the property because they are estopped from saying that the loss is not total and although by the Canadian Civil Code, art. 2545, abandonment cannot be made of a stranded ship if she can be raised so as to be sent forward to her destination, this article does not apply to cases where abandonment of a stranded ship has been accepted by underwriters, but must be read in conjunction with other articles (2547, 2549), by which abandonment and acceptance vest the property in the insurer, and cannot be defeated by subsequent events, as in English law. (Priv. Co.) The Provincial Insurance Company of Canada v. Leduc 338 3. Cargo Common Carriers-Inception of risk— "From the loading"-Named ports-Warranty— Attaching of policy-Common carriers-Intendment of parties.-A clause in a policy of marine insurance, providing that the adventure upon goods to be carried by the assured as common carriers between certain ports, shall begin "from and immediately following the loading thereof on board the said vessels at" certain ports enumerated, is not, unless so expressly provided by the policy, to be constructed as a warranty that the goods shall be loaded at such ports, but as mere recital, description, or intention, or expectation, that the goods will be there loaded; and the policy attaches to goods in the custody of the assured for the purposes of transportation in the ordinary course of their business as common carriers, carried into a port named in the policy by one of the vessels, but not in the strict sense loaded at that port on board the vessel provided that the facts show that, by reason of the nature of the transactions to which the policy relates, the parties intended that the policy should so attach. (Sup. Ct. of Cal. U. S.) Wells, Fargo, and Company v. The Pacific Insurance Company 4. Cargo Common Carriers-Open policy-Advice of shipments-Warranty-Condition precedent. -A memorandum on an open policy of insurance upon goods carried between certain ports by the insured as common carriers, providing that the agents of the insured should send to their head office "advices of the amount of each shipment," is not a warranty, or condition precedent, 111 |