Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

recover

material.-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy troversy, within statute.-The Howick Hall, 10
Chocolate Co., 10 F.(20) 293.

F.(20) 162.
em 182(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Testimony held to Captain's verbal statement to shipping com-
make jury questions as to buyer's duty to missioner held not a “submission to arbitration."

specify vessels and whether refusal by vessels -Id.
1 constituted breach of contract by seller.--Hecht 7 (U.S.D.C.La.) Provision of shipping ar-
v. Alfaro, 10 F.(20) 464.

ticles, making any change in working rules and
em 182(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ind.) When breach of wages retroactive, held not applicable to arbi-
contract occurred, and whose it was, held fact trary reduction of wages.-The Howick Hall,
questions for jury.-Hanging Rock Iron Co. v. 10 F.(20) 162.
P. H. & F. M. Roots Co., 10 F.(20) 154. Omoll (Ú.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Seaman may
182(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Whether proportion only actual outlay for cure and not for free
of defective goods warranted rescission held treatment.- The Balsa, 10 F.(20) 408.
for jury.--Dodge v. F. A. D. Andrea, Inc., 10 On 19 (U.S.D.C.La.) Seaman, refusing consent
F.(20) 387.

before start of voyage, to alteration of wage

clause, entitled to full wages, where discharg-
V. OPERATION AND EFFECT.

ed at first port of call for such refusal.--The
(A) Transfer of Title as Between Parties.

Steel Trader, 10 F.(20) 248.

23 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Statute prohibiting pay.
w 199 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Want of shipping in-
structions before destruction by fire of goods ble to advancements by foreign vessel in foreign

ment of seamen's wages in advance inapplica-
sold held not to affect title thereto.--Planters'
Oil Mill & Gin Co. v. A. K. Burrow Co., 10 F. port: The Archimedes, 10 F.(20) 234.
(2d) 312.

On 29(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Recovery for sea-

man, washed overboard when working on deck
em 218/2 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Evidence held in-
sufficient to establish effective delivery of cot-

load of lumber, may be had, though ship sea-
ton seed linters, sold before destruction there-

worthy.-Zinnel v. U. S. Shipping Board Emer-

gency Fleet Corporation, 10 F.(20) 47.
of by fire.- Planters' Oil Mill & Gin Co. v. A.
K. Burrow Co., 10 F.(20) 312.

cm 29(4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Seaman, working

on deck load in obedience to orders, held not to
VII. REMEDIES OF SELLER.

assume risk from absence of guard rope.-Zin-

nel v. U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet
(D) Resale.

Corporation, 10 F.(28) 47.
339 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) If seller, on buyer's C29(5) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Whether there
breach, resells goods, he may recover difference were lines along port side, where seaman was
between price and net proceeds of resale.-Grif- washed overboard, held for jury.-Zinnel v. U.
fin Grocery Co, v. Richardson, 10 F.(20) 467. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corpora-

tion. 10 F.(2d) 47.
(E) Actions for Price or Valne.

Whether absence of line along port side was
Om 357(1) (App.D.C.) Failure of plaintiff to

failure to exercise reasonable care to furnish
prove demand before suit held to warrant in- safe place to work held for jury.-Id.
ference that none was made.--Ross v. McLean,

Reasonable men might differ on question
10 F.(20) 627.

whether seaman would have been saved if there
Cm 358(0) (App.D.C.) Exclusion of testimony had been rope along deck where he was washed
as to plaintiff's compliance with Jockey Club off.-Id.
rules in action for part of purchase price of
race horse held not error.-Ross v. McLean, 10

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
F.(20) 627.

Om3 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Search Warrant Act

regulates only entry of searching officer.-U.
(F) Actions for Damages.

S. v. Old Dominion Warehouse, 10 F.(20) 736.
Ca384(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Seller's damages Cw3 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Entry and arrest held
held difference between contract price and lawful, where affidavit for search was made by
amount obtained on resale, plus expenses in-

federal officer after entry on defendants' prem-
cident thereto.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richard- ises, since he had previous knowledge sufficient
son, 10 F.(20) 467.

for warrant.-Rouda v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 916.
Under facts, seller had right to resort to re- cm3 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Search of defendant's
sale.-Id.

home for narcotics not invalid, because war-
Cm388 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Instruction that sell- rant stated that National Prohibition Act had
er contracted to sell three cars of good, country been violated.-Ray v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 359.
run, well-sacked sorghum or cane seed held

Affidavit for warrant to search defendant's
proper.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 home for narcotics not invalid, because not neg-
F.(20) 467.

ativing all provisions of statute authorizing sale
SALVAGE.

of narcotics.-Id.

w3 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Captions or directions es-
1. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.

sential parts of warrants.-U. S. v. Nestori, 10
C 13 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Towage rendered vessel F.(20) 570.
having broken tiller, but in no immediate dan- Courts should not attach undue influence to
ger, held not to justify claim for salvage sery-

purely formal considerations in passing on val-
ice.-The Trinidad, 10 F.(20) 849.

idity of search warrant.-Id.

m5 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Remedies of defendants
II. AMOUNT AND APPORTIONMENT. in criminal action, complaining of unlawful sei.
On 29 (U.S.C.C.A.Me.) Award of 3 per cent.

zure of goods to be used as evidence, stated.-
for saving yachts swept away by breaking of Dowling v. Collins, 10 F.(20) 62.
dams increased to 6 per cent.-Treworgy V.

Defendants in criminal case held not entitled
Richards, 10 F.(20) 152.

in original suit therefor to return of goods al-

leged to have been unlawfully seized.-Id.
III. LIEN AND RECOVERY.

On7 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Government held not to
Om48 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Evidence held to show

have practiced fraud or deception in securing
that master of libeled vessel accepted tug's

papers under subpænas addressed to corpo-
services because of tug master's statement,

rations although it later appeared that com-
which was not true.—The Trinidad, 10 F.(20) panies were not corporations. -Thompson v.

U. S., 10 F.(20) 781.
849.
SEAMEN.

em (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Search of business build-

ing and basement thereof held reasonable, irre-
5 (U.S.D.C.La.) Provision of shipping ar- spective of validity of search warrant.-Dowl-
ticles held not "submission in writing" of con- ing v. Collins, 10 F.(20) 62.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see samo topic and KEY-NUMBER
em (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Recovery of marked United States Shipping Board held liable to
bill paid for liquor and its use in evidence held subcharterer for damages to cargo from unsea-
not violative of defendant's constitutional worthiness of vessel.-Id.
rights.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 492. Cw58 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Charterer of scow
On7 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Searching officer, aft- held to have sustained burden of proving sink-
er lawful entry, held not limited by terms of ing at wharf was due to negligence of owners'
warrant as related to liquors which he could captain.-Schoonmaker-Conners Co. v. Rosoff
lawfully seize.-U. S. v. Old Dominion Ware- Engineering Co.. 10 F.(20) 64.
house, 10 F.(20) 736.

58 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held not
Validity of search after lawful entry deter- to show that loading of marble by subcharterer
mined by reasonableness.-Id.

on extreme stern of barge did not injure it.-
w 8 (App.D.C.) Defendant's plea, in action Dempsey v. Merritt, Chapman & Scott Cor-
against officers for damages for wrongful en- poration, 10 F.(20) 687.
try and search, held good as against demurrer. 58(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held not
--Hunt v. Evans, 10 F.(20) 892.

to show that repairs to chartered ship, neces-
Officer not concerned with illegalities in

sitating delay in delivery, were because of lat-
warrant regularly issued and legal on its face. ent defects. -Pendleton Bros. v. Pearce, 10 F.
-Id.

(2d) 692.
SENTENCE.

58 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to
See Criminal Law, 996–1001.

show that weight of log loaded on chartered

vessel was not such as to cause mast to buckle.
SEPARATE PROPERTY.

-Scottish Nav. Co. v. Munson S. S. Line, 10

F.(2d) 708.
See Husband and Wife, em 129.

In action by owner against charterer, steve-

doring in loading logs held, on evidence, up to
SHIPPING,

local standard of excellence.-Id.

Evidence held to show that mast, which broke
See Salvage; Wharves.

while loading chartered vessel, which had been

in place 20 years and had been repaired, was
III. CHARTERS.

weak.-Id.
39 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Whether charter 58(2) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Evidence held to
amounts to demise depends on whether owner make prima facie case for subcharterer for de-
has parted with full possession and control dur- lay.-Palmer & Parker Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(20)
ing period of charter party.-The Capitaine 214.
Faure, 10 F.(20) 950.

Evidence held to show subcharterer did not
Charter held not a demise of ship.-Id.

know vessel belonged to United States Shipping
41 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Charterers of ship are Board.--Id.
in certain respects owners pro hac vice, and m58(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) $6.50 per ton al-
can bind ship in certain matters.—The Capi- lowed charterers as measure of damages for
taine Faure, 10 F.(20) 950.

goods shipped on their own vessel, on owner's
C42 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Limitation in charter failure to deliver chartered ship, will be re-
party that required capacity of ship's gear was duced to $3.75, to correspond to testimony of
three tons would not place corresponding lim- disinterested witnesses.-Pendleton Bros. v.
itation on mast.-Scottish Nav. Co. v. Munson Pearce, 10 F.(20) 692.
S. S. Line, 10 F.(20) 708.

On owner's failure to deliver ship, charterers
m50 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Master held entitled
to sign bills of lading and charterers bound “to and rate paid the following spring for trans-

may recover difference between contract price
indemnify" owners against loss resulting there. porting goods.-Id.
from.—The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(2d) 950.

Measure of damages on owner's failure to
50 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Charterers held require deliver ship according to charter is difference
ed to pay only port charges enumerated in char: between contract price and market price of
ter party.-Wilkens Trafikaktiebolaget substitute tonnage.-Id.
Grangesberg Okelosund, 10 F.(20) 129.
Charterers held not liable to owner for item

IV. MASTER.
of pilotage from one dock to another.-Id.

"Wharfage," one of port charges which char- em 62 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y) Captain of chartered
terers agreed to pay, held to include "shed hire." scow, remaining on board, represented owners.
-Id.

-Schoonmaker-Conners Co. v. Rosoff Engineer-
Reference to customs in clause as to loading ing Co., 10 F.(20) 64.
and discharging held not to apply to remainder 69 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Master's right to libel
of charter.-Id.

vessel for costs of cure and maintenance not
Charge must be lien on vessel to constitute determined by matters stated.-The Balsa, 10
a “port charge."-Id.

F.(20) 408.
Wharfage chargeable to charterers, held to Master entitled to recover cost of cure and
include "dockage.”—10.

maintenance from vessel.--Id.
Construction of dockage charge against vessel
as valid preferred.--Id.

V. LIABILITIES OF VESSELS AND OWN-
Charge for inspection of cotton before load-

ERS IN GENERAL.
ing held not a "port charge."-Id.
Outward pilotage clause held to cover charge Board of Trade, requiring gratings on coal trim-

86(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Md.) Circular of British
of pilotage from Houston to Port Bolivar.-Id.
"Extra port charge" clause_held to

mers' escape hatches, could not be given ef-

cover
charge of pilotage from Port Bolivar to Gal- fect, in absence of evidence of effect given
veston pier.--Id.

thereto by British law.-Jones v. Gould Steam-
Cmw 51 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Maritime Lien Act held ships & Industrials, 10 F.(20) 792.
not applicable to damages to cargo from delay. C86(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Evidence held to
--Palmer & Parker Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 214. establish contributory negligence barring recov-
54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Charterer of

ery for death of one knocked from launch by
held liable for damage, unless, as pleaded, den Shipping Co., 10 F.(20) 412.

cables across slip.-Truelson v. Whitney & Bod-
caused by captain's negligence.-Schoonmaker-
Conners Co. v. Rosoff Engineering Co., 10 F.

VII. CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
(20) 64.
Cm 56 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Vessel held not liable Cmw 101 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Vessel held
to subcharterer for delays caused by charterer. carrier and not special carrier.-The City of
-Palmer & Parker Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 214. Dunkirk, 10 F.(20) 609.

V.

SCOW

common

2105 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.), Shipowner liable on- board and damaged turpentine.The Muskegon,
ly for goods delivered.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(20) 817.
10 F.(2d) 950.

125 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Delays due to unsea-
Action in rem lies for breach of contract of worthiness held not "deviation,” making vessel
affreightment, where goods have been actually absolutely liable_for cargo.-Palmer & Parker
delivered on ship.-Id.

Co, v. U. S., 10 F.(20) 214.
em 105 (U.S.D.C.La.) Cargo delivered at ship from 126 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Ship, having no part
side according to contract was at carrier's risk. in discharge of cargo, is not liable after cargo
--The Olga S., 10 F.(20) 801.

clears rail.— The Bencleuch, 10 F.(20) 49.
Om 106 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Dock receipt not the Use of slings in unloading cargo of lemons
contract governing, right of shipper against held improper:-Id.
shipowner, where "bill of lading' given.--The 128 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ship held not liable for
Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(20) 950.

decay of codfish shipped in summer.-The Mus-
Master held entitled to sign bills of lading. kegon, 10 F.(20) 817.
-Id.

em 130 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Shipper should miti-
Bills of lading, dated before arrival of vessel, gate damages by forwarding goods by other
and stamped "On board,” after goods were

means, if possible, where ship wrongfully dis-
placed on board without indicating date thereos, charges cargo.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.
held unlawfully issued (Act Aug. 29, 1916 (20) 950.
[Comp. St. 88 8604aaa-8604w]).-Id.
Master has no power to bind shipowners by sponsible for two years' delay after filing libels,

Om 13! (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.). Where libelant is re-
false bills of lading.--Id.

interest will not run during that time.The
Statute prohibiting false bills of lading, en- Bencleuch, 10 F.(20) 49.
acted to prevent fraud, should not be con-
strued to work fraud between shipper and ship- from breakage by handling on wharf, usual

en 13! (Ú.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) As respects liability
owner (Act Aug. 29, 1916 [Comp. St. 88 amount of breakage in holds may be considered,
8604aaa-8604w]).-Id.

in absence of proof of actual breakage in holds.
Bills of lading, falsely showing goods are -The Ellerdale, 10 F.(20) 53.
aboard ship, held binding on ship, where goods em 131 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Shippers! measure
are afterwards received on board and not

of damages for ship's wrongful discharge of
transported to destination.-Id.
Master is owner's agent to sign bills of lad- 950.

cargo stated.—The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(20)
ing; and such contracts, entered into in good cm 131 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ship held liable for du-
faith, bind ship.-Id.
Master's authority to bind ship and shipown- of watching, storage, etc.—The Muskegon, 10

plicate freight charges collected and expenses
er by signing bills of lading stated.--Id.
Where charter is demise of ship, shipowner

F.(20) 817.
is not liable on bills of lading signed by mas-

Ship held not liable to shipper for loss by de-

preciation of lire on payment of purchase price
ter.-Id.
Charter held not a demise of ship, and mas-

two years after arrival at Italian port.-Id.

Om 132(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Allegation of
ter, in signing bills of lading, bound ship.-Id.

Master's approval and signing of bills of lad: agency of shipping company for United States
ing issued by subcharterer before arrival of would not support theory of undisclosed prin-

Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation
ship held ratification thereof, binding on ship, cipal in suit for delay in shipment.—Mallory
-Id.

Master's approval of issuance and delivery S. S.Co: v. Garfield, 10 F.(20) 664.
of bills of lading by subcharterer held ratifica-

C132(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y) Libelant must
tion thereof, binding on vessel.-Id.

prove negligence of ship, after showing that
Master's letter, authorizing subcharterer to lading.-The Bencleuch, 10 F.(20) 49.

loss was within exceptions contained in bills of
sign bills of lading, held ratification, binding on
ship.-Id.

Burden on libelant to distinguish recoverable
Ship, discharging cargo for nonpayment of from nonrecoverable damage.--Id.
charter hire, held liable to shippers under bills Om 132(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Libelant has bur-
of lading signed by master.-Id.

den of showing what goods were removed after
cm 106 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ship held to have rati- notice required by bills of lading was given.-
fied and adopted bills of lading signed by com-

Thé Ellerdale, 10 F.(20) 53.
pany for
which charterer contracted to carry shipped, when not shown by bills of lading, to

Libelant must show condition of lemons when
goods.-The Muskegon, 10 F.(20) 817.
Bill of lading prima facie evidence of delivery

recover for lemons removed by board of health.
to ship, but may be contradicted or explained.

-Id.
-Id.

em 132(5), (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) More than usual
Omw 120 (U.S.D.C.La.) Ship held liable for logs

loss from breakage is not prima facie evidence
permitted to lie alongside overnight, while ship of negligence in stowage.-The Bencleuch, 10
was lying in open roadstead.-The Olga S., 10

F.(20) 49.
F.(20) 801.

Evidence held to show that cargo of lemons
Cm121(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Duty to make ship

was properly stored.-Id.
seaworthy nondelegable.-Bethlehem Shipbuild-

Admission in bills of lading that lemons were
ing Corporation v. Joseph Gutradt Co., 10 F. received in apparent good order and condition
(21) 769.

only creates prima facie proof that lemons, so
121(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Warranty of sea-

far as visible, were not damaged.-Id.
worthiness is absolute, and covers latent de- Em 132(5) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Evidence held to
fects, not ordinarily susceptible of detection.— show that vessel was unseaworthy when it com-
The Edith, 10 F.(20) 684.

menced voyage.-Palmer & Parker Co. v. U. S.,
Due diligence in fastening in place cargo

10 F.(2d) 214.
ports held not established.-Id.

Om 132(5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence held

to
Cam 121(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Patching leak in

show that tank in which cocoanut oil was
tank with cement held not exercise of due dili- shipped was not liquid-tight.—The City of Dun-
gence to make tank seaworthy.-The City of kirk, 10 F.(20) 609.
Dunkirk. 10 F.(20) 609,

cm 132 (5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ship held liable for
Cm 121 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Where tank leaked, shortage of steel rails which_bill of lading
allowing cargo of cocoanut oil to escape, ves-

showed were delivered to it.-The Muskegon,
sel was unseaworthy in such respect. The City 10 F.(20) 817.
of Dunkirk, 10 F.(20) 609.

Ona 132(6) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Actual seaworthi-
Test of "seaworthiness” stated.-Id.

ness or due diligence is question of fact, deter-
www123 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ship, carrying turpen- minable by admiralty court on the evidence.-
tine on deck, held liable for barrels washed over- The Edith, 10 F.(20) 684.

com-

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
Om 132(6) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Libel for damag- shipping company operating ship for United
es to shipment of cocoa beans was properly dis- States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Cor-
missed, in absence of proof that lighter han- poration, are those of Fleet Corporation.-Mal-
dling same was unseaworthy or negligently Iory S. S. Co. v. Garfield, 10 F.(20) 664.
handled.--Mercantile Bank of the Americas y. Shipping company, operating ship for United
Flower Lighterage Co., 10 F.(20) 705.

States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Cor-
ex133 (U.S.C.C.A.N.f.) Ship hypothecated poration, is not liable to shipper for breach of
to shipper for damages for failure to transport contract.-Id.
goods.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(20) 950. @mw 143 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Shipowner is not

Suit in rem against ship for breach of con- liable as carrier merely because of his owner-
tract to carry cannot be defeated by showing ship, but one having control of vessel is liable
that suit might or might not have been brought to shipper.-The Capitaine Faure, 10 F.(20)
against charterer in personam.-Id.

950.
Om 136 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Cases determined Omw 143 (U. S. D. C. N. Y.) Alleged agency of
after the Harter Act became effective must be steamship company for undisclosed principal
considered as determined in light of policy held not to relieve it from liability for negli-
therein announced (Act Feb. 13, 1893 (Comp. gent stowage.-- Fiorita & Amoroso v. Cunard
St. 88 8029-8035]).- The Edith, 10 F.(2) 684. S. S. Co. 10 F.(20) 244.

m 137 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Unseaworthiness de- no 154 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Where ship never
termined as of date of vessel's sailing.–Palmer breaks ground and voyage is abandoned, ship
& Parker Co. v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 214.

has no lien on goods.- The Capitaine Faure, 10
Defenses based on Ilarter Act were not avail. F.(20) 950.
able, where due diligence was not exercised to
make vessel seaworthy.-Id.

XI. LIMITATION OF OWNER'S LIABILITY.
Cwm 138 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Stranding of vessel Oma 209(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Amendment rele.
without negligence is "peril of sea” within Har- vant only on reference erroneously refused,
ter Act.-American Trading Co. of New Or- when application was made before reference
leans v. Fairhaven Co., 10 F.(20) 981.

had begun.-The Bencleuch, 10 F.(20) 49.
Cum 138 (U. S. D. C. Mass.) That voyage was Em 209(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.). Shipping
grossly mismanaged held not to imply liability pany, liable for breakage to lemons, may limit
by vessel or owner under Harter Act.-Palmer liability by invoice value as provided in bills of
& Parker Co, v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 214.

lading, although no motion to amend to include
en 138 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Liability for improper limitation was made after defeat of motion in
stowage held not relieved by statute.-- Fiorita companion case.-The Ellerdale, 10 F.(20) 53.
& Amoroso v. Cunard S. S. Co., 10 F.(20) 244.
141(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Vessel held common

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
carrier subject to statute prohibiting covenants

See Limitation of Actions.
in bill of lading relieving owner from exercise
of due diligence and obligation to make vessel

STATUTES.
seaworthy. The City of Dunkirk, 10 F.(20)
609.

For statutes relating to particular subjects, see
Em 141(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Placing and fas-

the various specific topics.
tening tarpaulin over hatchway nart of care of

I. ENACTMENT, REQUISITES, AND VA-
cargo within Harter Act, and liability cannot

LIDITY IN GENERAL.
be contracted against (Act Feb. 13, 1893, 88
1, 3 [Comp. St. 88 8029, 8031]).-The Edith,

ww47 (App.D.C.) Statute relating to motor-
10 F.(20) 684.

man's vestibule held not void for indefiniteness
Failure to provide proper dunnage is fault and uncertainty.-Washington Ry. & Electric
in stowage, under Harter Act, and liability can-

Co. v. District of Columbia, 10 F.(20) 999.
not be contracted against (Act Feb. 13, 1893, fire escapes not violative of constitution in that

Om 64 (12) (U.S.D.C.La.) Statutes relating to
$ 1 [Comp. St. § 8029]).-Id.
Emw 141(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Liability for im- objects not stated in title, and may stand,
proper stowage held not relieved by bill of lad- though provisions as to state fire marshal are
ing.-Fiorita & Amoroso v. Cunard S. S. Co.,

unconstitutional.—Huff v. Selber, 10 F.(20)

236.
10 F.(20) 244.

Bill of lading provision held not to relieve III. SUBJECTS AND TITLES OF ACTS.
from liability for damages contributed to by from 1101/2(4) (U.S.D.C.La.) Statutes relating
bad stowage.--Id.

to fire escapes not violative of constitution in
oma 141(3) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Ship held not to
have encountered storm, constituting peril of though provisions as to state fire marshal are

that objects not stated in title, and may stand,
sea, relieving from liability for sea water dam- unconstitutional.-Huff v. Selber, 10 F.(20)
age to sugar.-The Edith, 10 F.(20) 684.

236.
141(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) “Peril. of the sea"
defined.—The City of Dunkirk, 10 F.(20) 609. V. REPEAL, SUSPENSION, EXPIRATION,
Damage to shipment of cargo of cocoanut oil

AND REVIVAL.
caused by leakage of tank held not due to peril w 158 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Repeals by implica-
of sea.--Id.

tion are not favored.--Santoni & Co. v. Raf-
mm 142 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Damages may not be ferty, 10 F.(20) 788.
recovered for goods removed before notice was Om 159 (App.D.C.) General statutes, without
given, where bills of lading required notice to negative words, do not repeal particular pro-
be made.-The Bencleuch, 10 F.(20) 49.

visions, unless irreconcilable.- Washington Ry.
Clause in bills of lading requiring notice of & Electric Co. v. District of Columbia, 10 F.
damages before removal does not apply to lem- (20) 999.
ons seized and condemned by board of health.

VI. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.
-Id.
Om 142 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Written notice unnec-

(B) Particular Classes of Statutes,
essary, under requirement of notice of claim w245 (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Taxation statutes con-
before reinoval of goods; but notice must be oi strued most favorably to taxpayer.-Holly Sug-
intention to claim payment of damage.-Fiorita ar Corporation v. Board of Com’rs of Mesa
& Amoroso v. Cunard S. S. Co., 10 F.(20) 241. County, 10 F.(2d) 506.

Provision for notice of claim before removal w245 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Right to impose taxes
of goods held sufficiently complied with.-Id. must be clear, doubtful constructions being re-
Om 143 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Rights and obliga- solved in favor of taxpayer.-Gus Sun Book-
tions of contract of carriage, entered into bying Exchange Co. v. Deane, 10 F.(20) 378.

[ocr errors]

... 371

3a (4)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

cum 245 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Doubt as to meaning of 1874, June 22, ch. 391, $ 21, 18 Stat. 190 41
taxing statute resolved in favor of taxpayer.- 1875, Feb. 8. ch. 36, § 23, 18 Stat. 312.. 973
Beatty v. Heiner, 10 F.(20) 390.

1877, Feb. 27, ch. 69, 19 Stat. 247.... 41

1881, March 3, ch. 138, 21 Stat. 502.. 26
STATUTES CONSTRUED.

1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379. See
ENGLAND.

Interstate Commerce Act.

1887, March 3, ch. 359, 88 5–7, 10, 24 Stat.
St. 9 & 10 Vict. ch. 93, $ 3....

506, 507..

807
UNITED STATES.
1888, Aug. 13, ch. 866. 25 Stat. 433..

231
1890, June 10, ch. 406, 26 Stat. 130. 41
CONSTITUTION.

1890, July 2, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209.
Art. 1, § 2, cl. 3.
... 813

96, 212, 851, 872
Art. 1, § 8, cl. 5.

515

1890, Aug. 19, ch. 802, 8 1, art. 18, rule 1,
Amend. 4

492, 736, 781
26 Stat. 326.

677
Amend. 5 .492, 606, 711, 759, 781, 977, 986 1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, 27 Stat. 445.
Amend. 6
358, 492

49, 214, 684, 801
Amend. 8

657

1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, § 1, 27 Stat. 445..
Amend. 14
.139, 236, 252, 759, 830

244, 684
Amend. 18
.694, 973 1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, § 2, 27 Stat. 445..

244, 609
BANKRUPTCY ACT.
1893, Feb. 13, ch. 105, § 3, 27 Stat. 445..

684, 981
Act 1898, July 1, ch. 541, 30 Stat. 544. 1893, March 2, ch. 196, 27 Stat. 531. ...74, 132
3a

396 1893, March 2, ch. 197, 27 Stat. 532... 993
3a (1, 2)

478 1894, Aug. 24, ch. 328, 28 Stat. 501. 993

333, 612 1894, Aug. 27, ch. 349, § 25, 28 Stat. 552.. 41
§ 3d

396
1896, April 1, ch. 87, 29 Stat. 85..

132
14b, 14h(2). Amended 1910, June 25,

1897, June 4, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11. Amend-
ch. 412, § 6, 36 Stat. 839..

119

ed 1900, June 6, ch. 791, 31 Stat. 588. 637
88 24a, b, 25a, 27.

275

1897, June 7, ch. 4, § 1, art. 18, rule 8, 30
Stat. 101.

424
8 29

778
63

1897, June 7, ch. 4, § 1, arts. 21, 24, 30
790

Stat. 101.
61b

424
502
1897, July 24, ch. 11, 30 Stat. 151.

41
67d, e.

301

1898, July 1, ch. 541, 30 Stat. 544. See
70

778

Bankruptcy Act.
$ 70a

926

1899, March 3, ch. 441, 30 Stat. 1354.... 15
70e

153
1900, April 12, ch. 191, 31 Stat. 77.

789
1900, April 12, ch. 191, § 3, 31 Stat. 77... 788
ORIMINAL CODE.

1900, June 6, ch. 791, 31 Stat. 588.. 637
Act 1909, March 4, ch. 321, 35 Stat. 1088. 1903, March 2, ch. 976, 32 Stat. 943. 132
$ 37

1905, Feb. 20, ch. 592, 33 Stat. 724...625, 656

124, 339, 409
$ 135

675
1905, Feb. 20, ch. 592, § 5, 33 Stat. 725..

646, 904
§ 141

370

1905, Feb. 23, ch. 735, 33 Stat. 737.
194

993
..355, 401

1905, March 3, ch. 1434, 33 Stat. 1001.. 999
$ 197

..401, 409

1906, June 29, ch. 3592, 8 4, 34 Stat. 596 585
$ 215

.572, 711

1906, June 29, ch. 3592, § 4(7), 34 Stat.
$ 217

455

596. Amended 1918, May 9, ch. 69, 40
332

401, 711
Stat. 542.

560
1906, June 30, ch. 3935, 34 Stat. 816. 648
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.

1907, March 2, ch. 2534, § 2, 34 Stat. 1228 585
Act 1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379. 1907, March 2, ch. 2534, $$ 3, 4, 34 Stat.
Ch. 104

225

1228. Repealed 1922, Sept. 22, ch. 411,
Ch. 104. Amended 1920, Feb. 28, ch. 91,

42 Stat. 1021...

585
41 Stat. 456.

622

1908, April 22, ch. 149, 35 Stat. 65....47, 140
$ 8

1908, April 22, ch. 149, 35 Stat. 65.
225

Amended 1910, April 5, ch. 143, 36 Stat.
JUDICIAL CODE.
291

132

1908, May 23, ch. 190, 35 Stat. 246. 999
Act 1911, March 3, ch. 231, 36 Stat. 1087.

1908, May 23, ch. 190, $ 16, 35 Stat. 250.. 999
$ 24 (1)

590 1908, May 27, ch. 199, SS 1, 2, 6, 9, 35 Stat.
§ 24 (8)
96 312, 313, 315...

487
$ 24(16)

590 1908, May 28, ch. 212, § 10, 35 Stat. 428.. 239
24 (20)
363 1909, Feb. 4, ch. 65, 35 Stat. 594.

788
24 (23)

96 1909, Feb. 9. ch. 100, 35 Stat. 614.
28

368

Amended 1914, Jan. 17. ch. 9, 38 Stat.
Š 28. Amended 1914, Jan. 20, ch. 11, 38

275; 1922, May 26, ch. 202, 42 Stat. 596 352
Stat. 278..

590 1909, March 4, ch. 321, 35 Stat. 1088. See
§ 37

220, 222, 272

Criminal Code.
8$ 119–122

657

1909, Aug. 5, ch. 6, 36 Stat. 11..
$ 26.)

41
139, 759

1910, April 5, ch. 143, 36 Stat. 291..
$ 266
515

132

1910, April 14, ch. 160, 36 Stat. 298..
$ 209
358

132
§ 269. Amended 1919, Feb. 26, ch. 48, 40

1910, April 14, ch. 160, $$ 2, 3, 36 Stat. 298 132
Stat. 1181..

492

1910, June 23, ch. 373, 36 Stat. 604..... 214
$ 284

60 1910, June 25, ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825. 768

1910, June 25, ch. 395, $8 1-3, 36 Stat. 825. 106
PENAL CODE.

1910, June 25, ch. 412, § 6, 36 Stat. 839.. 119
See Criminal Code.

1911, Feb. 17, ch. 103, 36 Stat, 913. 132

1911, Feb. 17, ch. 103, 2, 36 Stat. 913.. 74
STATUTES AT LARGE.

1911, Feb, 17, ch. 103, & 2, 36 Stat. 913.
1802, April 14, ch. 28, 2 Stat. 153.

585 Amended 1915, March 4, ch. 169, § 1, 38
1804, June 30, ch. 171, § 14, 13 Stat. 214 41 Stat. 1192..

74

0:00:04

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »