« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
4. (Competing salvors–Jurisdiction.) Of two sets of salvors,
the first in possession claimed salvage before a magistrate, under 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 75, and the award then made was afterwards affirmed on appeal by the owners. The other salvors, who had not intervened before the magistrates, had in the meanwhile applied to this court, which rejected their petition, on the ground that they ought to have intervened before the magistrate, and also for want of adoption of their services by the first salvors
or of incompetency in the latter. Eugene, 156. 5. (Derelict-Amount-Practice.) In a case of derelict, the
whole of the net proceeds, £35, were summarily awarded, no
owner appearing. William Hamilton, 168. 6. (Derelict-Appraisement and unlivery.) In a case of great
merit and danger a clear moiety was allowed, deducting the usual costs, but the expenses of appraisement and unlivery being
paid out of the other moiety. Britannia, 153. 7. (Derelict-- Priority.) One moiety apportioned between various
salvors according to their respective merits. Effort, 165. 8. (Government ship.) A government steamer held entitled to
salvage, though the use of it was allowed only on a stipulation to reimburse all expenses arising from damage to the steamer or
stores. Lustre, 154. 9. (Government ship-Amount.) In case of salvage by a govern
ment steamer, the service being one of labor and difficulty, and the vessel saved being in great danger, £1200 was decreed upon a value of £6000.
In calculating the amount of salvage in such a case, the responsibility incurred by the officer in command of the government ship for neglect of duty, is to be taken into consideration.
Ewell Grove, 209. 10. (Special risk by pilots.) Where a pilot and his crew had in
curred special risk and labor (by towing a ship) in the English channel, £126 and the expenses were decreed on a value of
£2000. Industry, 203. WAGES. (Baltic trade-Detention by ice.) The ship's articles
contained this clause, (usual in the Baltic trade,) “And should
the ship winter abroad on account of the ice, the officers and seamen agree to accept half wages during the time of such detention.” The ship went out “ seeking,” but not being able to get a cargo before the ice set in, though she might have sailed without one, was detained during the winter : Held, that only
half wages were due during the detention. Hoghton, 100. 2. (Implied contract.) A seaman, who had entered as' second
mate, but who afterwards, upon the desertion of the first mate at a foreign port, took his duty till the return of the ship, held entitled to receive during that time the same wages as the
original first mate. Gondolier, 190. 3. (Loss of ship-Insurance.) Where the ship, with her whole
cargo, upon which no freight had been earned, was totally lost, held, that the seamen could not recover their wages, although the ship was insured. Semble, that if any of the
had been saved, the seamen would have had a lien on it for wages. Lady Durham, 196. 4. (Recovery.) Motion on behalf of seaman that bondholder in a
suit in pænam against a foreign ship might pay wages, and deduct the same from proceeds of sale, rejected, there being no
certificate of consul or consent by master. Adolph, 249. 5. (Same.) Warrant of arrest for wages, at the instance of foreign
seamen, given against the master and freight in the first in. stance, the ship having sailed, and on her return the claim being unsettled, she also was declared liable for the amount, and costs, Margaret, 240.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Selections from Robinson, parts 2, 3 and 4.
CARRIER. (Liability of, to consignors.) The circumstance that
the consignee is charged in the invoice with the freight and insurance of the goods sent by the carrier is not conclusive against the right of the consignor to sue the carrier for loss or damage ; but it is only a material fact in the case, still leaving
open to consideration whether, under the whole circumstances of the case, the delivery of the goods to the carrier has been at the risk of consignor or consignee, or whether, by special contract between the carrier and consignor, the former remains liable to the latter. A contrary direction by a judge, to the jury on a trial in Scotland, was held on appeal, reversing the judgment of the court of session, to be a misdirection. Dunlop
v. Lambert, Rob. 663. JOINT STOCK COMPANY. (Contribution among partners.)
In a suit by directors of a company which had been dissolved, against some of the partners for contribution towards losses : Held, affirming the decision of the court of session, that upon construction of the whole deed of partnership the partners were liable to contribute beyond the shares subscribed for, although by the first article it was declared “that the subscribers should have right to the profits, and be liable to the losses arising from or upon the said business, only to the extent of and in proportion to their respective shares," there being other articles which spoke of mutual relief" in proportion to the shares." Alexander
v. Macaliston, M. R. 353. NUISANCE. (Interdict.) Where an interdict had been finally
pronounced to restrain a party from committing a nuisance by the erection of slaughter-houses, such party having, under a previous stage of the proceedings, been allowed by the court to go on with the buildings, without prejudice to the question of nuisance, the terms of the final interdict were on appeal so far qualified as to allow the defendant to go on with his building, with liberty to apply to the court for an opportunity of trying the experiment, whether he could conduct the business of slaughtering cattle without creating a nuisance. Pedie v. Swin
ton, Rob. 1018. PARTIES. (Privity.) An agreement by A to indemnify B
against the claim of C does not entitle C to prosecute such claim
against A. Ewing v. Burns, Rob. 435. USAGE. (Against whom evidence.) Evidence of usage can only
be relied on against those who have been themselves, or whose
predecessors have been, parties to the facts constituting such usage. Accordingly, in a suit for rates against certain occupiers in a parish, within a portion of such parish which had been annexed to a borough, it was held, that previous payments of such rates by the magistrates of the borough to the authorities of the parish afforded no evidence of usage against the individual occupiers. Ewing v. Burns, Rob. 435.
II.-DIGEST OF AMERICAN CASES.
Selections from 22 Pickering's (Massachusetts) Reports, and 4 Blackford's
ASSIGNMENT. (General-nature of.) An indenture, contain
ing a general assignment of a debtor's property in trust for the payment of his debts, and a release of such debts by the creditors, does not constitute the assignees bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration as against one having an equitable title to a portion of the property, unless it be shown that some new responsibility was incurred on the credit of the property, or that the creditors would not have become parties to the indenture if they had known that such portion of the property was held by
the debtor in trust. Clark v. Flint, 22 Pick. 231. 2. (Of bond.) In an action brought for the benefit of the as
signee of a bond, in the name of the obligee, the obligor is entitled to set up in defence, that the bond was obtained by fraud on the part of the obligee. But if, in such case, it be proved, that the bond was assigned with the assent of the obligors, and that they knew at the time of the assignment, that the bond had been obtained from them by fraud, and did not communicate their knowledge to the assignee, that would preclude them from setting up the fraud of the obligee, to defeat the action. Hol
brook v. Burt, 22 Pick. 546. 3. No particular form is necessary to constitute an assignment, in
equity, of a chose in action; and the assignment in such case
may even be by parol. Slaughter v. Foust and another, 4
to perform certain work, has performed it but not agreeably to
work done. Canby v. Ingersol, 4 Blackford, 493. ATTORNEY. (Lien of.) In the case of a set-off of judgments
or executions, the lien of the attorney in the first suit for his
bank, the depositor received a book containing the cashier's cer-
have been obtained from the owner by means of a forgery, and
original owner. Coffin v. Anderson, 4 Blackford, 395. 2. (Same.) A obtained certain bank notes from a bank by means
of a forgery, and afterwards exchanged them with another bank and with individuals for other bank notes. Held, that the bank imposed on by the forgery, was entitled to the last mentioned