Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 150 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 150 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


■and for any loss by the careening of the
vessel and consequent parting of the
pipe, the vessel is liable. The R. G. Win-
slow, Fed. Cas. No. 11.736, 4 Biss. 13.

24. Duty of mate. — The Belvidere, Fed.
Cas. No. 17,790, 1 Pet. Adm. 258.

25. V/here shipper loads goods. —
Stockton Milling Co. r. California Nav.,
etc.. Co.. 165 Fed. 356.

26. Stowage of goods. — Lawrence v.
'Minturn (U. S.), 17 How. 100, 15 L. Ed.
58; Dowgate Steamship Co. v. Arbuckle,
158 Fed. 179. See post. "Improper Stow-
age or Overloading," § 4303.

Firecrackers. — A shipowner held liable
for damage to a shipment of firecrackers
on the ground of negligent stowage,
where althougli the ship encountered no
imusual perils on the voyage, and the
packages were marked "frail" on the bill
of lading, they were found broken open,
and the contents injured, when they were
delivered. Doherr ?'. Houston, 123 Fed.
334, affirmed in 128 Fed. .594, 64 C. C. A.
102.



Flour. — Mephams f. Biessel (U. S.), 9
Wall. 370. 19 L. Ed. 677.

Mirrors — Statuary. — The Star of Hope
(U. S.), 17 Wall. 651, 21 L. Ed. 719.

Nuts.— The Star of Hope (U. S.), 17
Wall. 651. 21 L. Ed. 719.

Salt. — The master is not to blame for
bringing sacks of salt between decks, if
it be well stored and packed, and secured
with proper dunnage. The usage of trade
is to carry salt in that way. Rich v. Lam-
bert (U. S.), 12 How. 347. 13 L. Ed. 1017.
See Clark v. Barnwell (U. S.), 12 How.
272, 13 L. Ed. 985.

Sugar.— The Earnwood, 83 Fed. 315.

27. The Star of Hope (U. S.), 17 Wall.
651, 21 L. Ed. 719.

28. Stowage so that goods may not in-
jure each other. — The Pharos, 9 Fed. 912;
The Delaware (U. S.). 14 Wall. 579, 20
L. Ed. 779; Propeller Niagara v. Cordes
(U. S.), 21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41.

Illustrations. — A carrier is responsible
for stowing merchandise in unsafe prox-
imity to chemicals liable to injure it. The
St. Patrick, 7 Fed. 125.

A vessel which carries paper stock and
petroleum in the same cargo is liound to
use special care in stowing them with
reference to each other. The Sabioncello,
Fed. Cas. No. 12,198, 7 Ben. 357.

Charterers of a vessel held lialile, on
the ground of negligent stowage, for
damage done to a cargo of goatskins
caused by a leakage of brine from casks
of citron, which, as shown by the evi-
dence, usually leaked, and in close prox-



4299



CARRIERS.



3904



or be injured by the motion or leakage of the vessel,-'' unless by agreement the
stowage of the goods is to be performed by the shipper.^*' The ship is not
liable for a loss caused by bad stowage, where the goods were stowed by steve-



imity to which the skins were stowed.
Lazarus v. Barber, 124 Fed. 1007, affirmed
in 136 Fed. 534, 69 C. C. A. 310.

Stowing heavy cargo on casks. — Stow-
age of cargo is bad where heavy casks of
oil were placed on small casks of plum-
bago. Crooks V. The Fanny Skolfield, 65
Fed. 814.

A steamship held liable for damage to
a cargo of olives shipped in casks, on
the ground of negligent stowage, on evi-
dence showing that cargo of such weight
was stowed on top of the casks as to
flatten the staves of some, causing the
brine to leak out, and consequent damage
to the olives. The Soyo Maru, 178 Fed.
92], 102 C. C. A. 428.

Wool injured by oil. — A vessel is liable
for damage to wool cargo by whale oil
which leaked in large quantities from bar-
rels in an adjoining compartment when
the wool was raised but little if any above
the deck in stowing, and the facts that
whale oil barrels always leaked, and that
there was an excessive leakage during the
voyage, were known to the navigators,
and no steps were taken to discharge the
oil from the bilges where it had accumu-
lated to a depth of more than two feet,
and from which it was liable to and did
escape into the compartment where the
wool was stowed. The Persiana, 156
Fed. 1010.

Where barrels of cod oil were stowed
in a compartment of the hold of a vessel
partly filled with wool, another compart-
ment being available, and the barrels were
laid on their bilges in a single tier upon
a wooden bedding, separated from each
other by hanging pieces of wood, no at-
tempt being made to secure them, and
(luring the voyage some of the barrels
were broken open and the wool saturated,
the steamship was answerable for such
damage on the ground of negligent stow-
age. Tlie Orcadian, 116 Fed. 930.

Glycerin injuring furs and skins. — A
steamship, on a voyage from London to
New York, stowed a quantity of glycerin
in iron drums in the orlop deck of a hold,
while on the lower deck was a quantity
of furs and skins. The drums were not
so fastened as to prevent fore and aft
motion, or to prevent their moving verti-
cally in heavy weather; nor was the hatch
of the orlop deck battened and calked, as
were the hatches above. The ship en-
countered rough weather, and at the end
of the voyage it was found that some of
the drums had been chafed through and
were empty, and that a quantity "of the
glycerin had washed over the coamings of
the hatch, and damaged the goods below.
Held, that in view of the dangerous char-
acter of glycerin as a cargo, owing to the



frailty of the packages and the consequent
liability of leakage, it was incumbent on
the ship, if it stowed it above other cargo,
to take proper precautions, both by se-
curing it from shifting in heavy weather,
and by rendering the hatch leading below
absolutely tight, and its failure to do so
was negligence, which rendered it liable
for the resulting damage to the cargo be-
low. The Mississippi, 120 Fed. 1020, 5&
C. C. A. 525, affirming 113 Fed. 985.

29. Motion or leakage of vessel. — ^The
Delaware (L". S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed.
779; Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.),
21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41.

A contract for the carriage of a cargo
of creosote oil in iron drums from Liver-
pool to Eagle Harbor, Wash., as evi-
denced by the charter party and bill of
lading, warranted the seaworthiness of
the ship, specified that she should load in
a customary manner, that all liability of
the charterer should cease on completion
of loading, and payment of advance if re-
quired, admitted the receipt of the cargo
in good order, and obligated the carrier
to deliver it in like good order, subject to
the usual exceptions of loss by perils of
the sea, etc. In the vicinity of Cape
Horn, the vessel encountered bad
weather, and in a heavy gale was thrown
on her beam ends and a part of the cargo
in the between decks was dislodged,
drums there stowed and in the upper tier
in the hold .were injured by chafing,
straining, and bruising, and the contents
spilled and lost. The ship made the voy-
age safely, and no damage to the cargo
was caused by anj' exposure to the direct
action of the elements. It was shown
that such drums could be stowed so as to
remain secure in the rough weather, which
was to be expected in rounding the Horn.
Held, that the damage was due to im-
proper stowage, and that the ship was lia-
ble therefor. Knohr v. Pacific Creosoting
Co., 181 Fed. 856.

Upon proof of extraordinary sea perils
and of damage to the ship, which was ac-
companied by considerable damage to
cargo in the hold on the side of the vessel,
held, on proof of usual good dunnage, that
the ship was not liable for such damage,
but that the ship was liable for certain
damage occasioned to bags stowed about
the masts and pump-well, where the evi-
dence showed that there was not the
usual and customary amount of dunnage
to prevent damage from leaks in heavy
weather. The .Aspasia, 79 Fed. 91, decree
affirmed in SO Fed. 1003, 26 C. C. A. 372.

30. When shipper stows goods. — The
Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed.
779: Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.),
21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41.



3905 CARRIAGE OP PROPERTY. §§ 4299-4300

dores employed, directed, and paid by the shipper.^i But a ship is responsible
for proper stowage of her cargo, although the charter party gave a representative
of the charterer the right to select the stevedores for loading, which fact did not
deprive the master of his authority to control the manner of stowage.^- And the
rule that a ship and its owners are exempt from liability for damages by bad
rtowage performed by stevedores selected by the owner of the cargo does not
apply, where the loss was not caused by bad stowage or mischievous acts in hand-
ling the cargo, but by carrier's negligent failure to safeguard the same after
it had been placed aboard and stowed. ^^

Degree of Care Required. — A ship is bound to the exercise of reasonable
care and skill only in the stowage of cargo, and to render her liable for dam-
age to cargo by reason of improper stowage it must be shown that the manner of
stowage was such as would not have been approved at the time by a stevedore or
master of ordinary skill and judgment, knowing the voyage to be made and the
weather and sea conditions which the vessel might reasonably be expected to
encounter.34 It is incumbent upon a carrier who accepts goods knowing them to
be of a character requiring special care in stowing to exercise such care, and he
is liable for damag(f resulting from a failure to stow them in such place and
in such manner that they will not be injured by the ordinary contingencies of
the voyage. •'^•"'

Perils of the Sea. — \\ here weather encountered on a voyage was not
more severe than was to be expected at that season of the year and in the locality
traversed, peril of the sea is no defense to an action for injuries to goods from
improper stowage. ^'^ If, "sweating" be produced in consequence of negligent
stowage, the carrier is precluded from setting up the defense that "sweating" is
one of the dangers of the sea.-'*" And where a steamship company is negligent in
stowing bags near coal, and sea water coming into the vessel washes coal dust
into the bags, it can not claim that the damage was caused by an act of God.^^

§ 4300. Stowage on Deck.— I'pon an ordinary contract of affreightment
a vessel is bound to carry goods under deck, and is responsible for any loss
of goods carried on deck without the owner's consent. ^'^ But express contracts
may be made in writing which will define the obligations and duties of the par-
ties as to stowage on dcck.^" Where the contract between the shipper and the

31. The Diadem, Fed. Cas. No. 3,875, 4 37. "Sweating" of cargo.— The Star of
Ben. 247. Hope (U. S.), 17 Wall. 651, 21 L. Ed.

32. Knohr ?■. Pacific Creosoting Co., 181 719.

^oi ^!^'';-r ■ ^T ^ c^ , 38. Delta Bag Co. v. Frederick Leyland

^^•^.^n^'^^'"'^ Nav., etc.. Co. t^ Stock- & Co., 173 III. App. 38.

ton Mill. Co., 18-4 Fed. 369, 107 C. C. A. __ ' * j i tm.' t^ i

46, affirming judgment, 165 Fed. 356. .t?^c ^^*?^?F.^n°"..'*^.*?•T~T,^^ .Sf^'V'^^''^



34. Degree of care required. — The Mus-



(U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 779; Law-



selcrag, 125 Fed. 786. '"^^^^ l!' Mmturn (U. S.) 17 How. 100,

In an action to recover for damage to J^.^V? H ^ ^'^" Canaria, 16 Fed.

range boilers because of negligent stow- f f,V -. o? h^^^'t, .'^- ^%- I^''^ 'a? '

age, where the evidence shows that the J,^^'"^ T= ^\^J^^l°''^'/-'^-S^^-n''-

boilers were stowed in the customary I' ?'. n-o^o'^r^^^ ' ^l w^"^- '" ^^^. ^'''•

way, and according to the best judgment ^^A/^'^^^f ' ^J^T' ' Warmgz; Morse,

of experienced stevedores, the fact that I ^'^- ^^'' ^f'^^' ^- ^'^""^ ^. f°""v ^'

if they had been put in crates, or several ^, ."^"'o, °^^,- /^^.' °°|,',^f ^- ^"'i^^' L^^'

of them lashed together, the injury sus- ^^^' Shackleford v. Wilcox, 9 La. 33.

tained might have been avoided, does not ^ "clean" bill of lading— that is, a bill

make the carrier liable, as he was not of lading which is silent as to the place

required to take such extraordinary pre- oi stowage — imports a contract that the

cautions. Montague v. The Isaac Reed, goods are to be stowed under deck.

82 Fed. 566. Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21

35. Goods requiring special care.— How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41; The Delaware (U.
Doherr v. Houston, 123 Fed. 334, affirmed S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 779.

128 Fed. 594. 64 C. C. A. 102. 40. The Delaware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579,

36. Perils of the sea. — The Orcadian, 20 L. Ed. 779; Lawrence v. Minturn (U.
116 Fed. 930. . S.), 17 How. 100, 15 L. Ed. 58.



§§ 4300-4301



CARRIERS.



3906



master refers to the "capacity of the vessel," a doubtful inference may be drawn
that the cargo was to be carried on deck; but this inference is repelled by the
fact that the shipper refused to let such an agreement have a place in the bill of
lading, and bound himself to pay under-deck freight.'*! Cargo stowed on deck
in violation of a contract is at the vessel's risk, unless clearly shown that it
would have been destroyed if it had been loaded below deck."*-

Custom or Usage. — A commercial usage to stow gin on deck having existed
for a sufficient length of time to have become generally known rebuts a presump-
tion of negligence arising from the loss of gin so stowed.'*-^ In the case of a
parol shipment, the master is allowed to show a local custom to carry the goods
■on deck in a particular trade. It must, however, be a custom so generally known
and recognized, that a fair presumption arises that the parties in entering mto
the contract agreed that their rights and duties should be regulated by it."*-*

Perils of the Sea. — A shipowner is not exonerated from liability for a failure
to deliver cargo on the ground that it was lost through perils of the sea, where
it was stowed on the deck without the consent of the shipper, and there is no
proof that the place or manner of stowage was sanctioned by general usage,
or that they did not contribute to the loss.'*-'^

§ 4301. Dunnage. — It is the duty of the carrier to dunnage the cargo in
a manner reasonably sufficient to ]M-otect it from what is to be naturally ex-
pected, and in accordance with the usages of the port of shipment. ^^' For fail-



41. Construction of contract with refer-
ence to capacity of vessel. — The Water
Witch (U. S.), 1 Black 49-t. 17 L. Ed. 155.

42. The Governor Carey, Fed. Cas. No.
5,645, 2 Hask. 487.

43. Custom or usage. — Barber v. Brace,
3 Conn. 9, 8 Am. Dec. 149.

44. Propeller Niagara 7.'. Cordes (U. S.),
21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41.

45. Perils of the sea.— The Giialala, 178
Fed. 403, 102 C. C. A. 548; The Dela-
ware (U. S.), 14 Wall. 579, 20 L. Ed. 779;
Lawrence v. Minturn (U. S.), 17 How.
100, 15 L. Ed. 58. See The Rebecca, Fed.
Cas. No. 11,619, 1 Ware 187, cited in
New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants'
Bank (U. S.), 6 How. 343, 12 L. Ed. 465.

46. Dunnage. — The Aspasia, 79 Fed. 91.
"Dunnage is placed under the cargo

to keep it from being wetted by water
getting into the hold, or between the dif-
ferent parcels to keep them from bruis-
ing and injuring each other. Webster's
definition of dunnage is 'fagots, boughs, or
loose materials of any kind, laid on the
bottom of a ship to raise heavy goods
above the bottom, to prevent injury by
water in the hold; also, loose articles of
merchandise wedged between parts of
the cargo to prevent rubbing, and to
hold them steady.' " Insurance Co. v.
Thwing (U. S.), 13 Wall. 672, 20 L. Ed.
607.

A ship which neglects to provide dun-
nage for sugar cargo, in consequence of
which the bags in the lower tier are al-
lowed to rest on the floor, in the mois-
ture caused by drainage from above, is
liable for the damage, including both nat-
ural drainage and such as arises from
soaking by sea water. The Earnwood,
•83 Fed. 315.



Instance of improper dunnage. — A car-
rier, having received in good condition a
large block of deeply veined marble,
which, after notice to the officer of the
ship in charge of the stowage "that it
was a weak-looking block; that it
wouldn't take much to break it," — was
stowed so that it supported overlying
cargo, with no support for itself, except
pieces of dimnage near each end, with
one end resting unevenly on the dunnage,
is liable for the break at the end, extend-
ing partly through a vein. The Victoria,
114 Fed. 962.

Two drums of glycerine in a consign-
ment of 102 on board the steamship Bri-
tannia were cut by chafing together dur-
ing the voyage, whereby the glycerine
leaked out. It appeared that the dunnage
wood which was placed between all the
drums of the consignment, had fallen out
during the voyage from between these
two drums only. The voyage had_ been
a rough one. The damage was within the
exceptions of the bill of lading. Held,
that the only fair inference was that the
wood between these drums was not se-
cured in the usual and proper manner,
and that the loss was therefore the result
of negligence in stowage, for which the
steamship was .liable, notwithstanding the
exceptions of the bill of lading. Marx v.
The Britannia, 34 Fed. 906.

Where the cargo is stowed around the
mast, particularly a cargo of salt, it
should be dunnaged away from the mast,
so the water flowing down the same
would not affect it. The Nith, 36 Fed.
383. 13 Sawy. 481, cited in The Aspasia,
79 Fed. 91.

The use of green cocoanuts for dun-
nage has been held negligence. Crooks
V. The Fanny Skolfield, 65 Fed. 814.



3907



CARRIAGE OF PROPERTY.



§§ 4301-4302



tire to use such reasonable and customary dunnage as will protect the cargo
from heavy weather, the carrier remains liable. But upon proof of extraordi-
nary sea perils and of damage to the ship, which was accompanied by considera-
ble damage to cargo in the hold on the side of the vessel, on proof of usual good
dunnage, the ship is not liable for such damage.^"

§§ 4302-4304. Unseaworthiness or Unfitness of Vessel— § 4302. In
General. — In every contract for the carriage of goods by sea, unless other-
wise expressly stipulated, there is a warranty on the part of the shipowner that
the ship is seaworthy at the time of beginning her voyage, and not merely that
he does not know her to be unseaworthy, or that he has used his best efforts
to make her seaworthy. The warranty is absolute that the ship is or shall be
m fact seaworthy at that time and does not depend upon his knowledge or ig-
norance, his care or negligence. ^^ The vessel must be seaworthy for the par-
ticular voyage,'*^ and the cargo she undertakes to carr}^^*' All the cases must



47. The Aspasia. 79 Fed. 91.

48. Unseaworthiness or unfitness of ves-
sel.— The Xellie Flovd. 116 Fed. 80; The
Irrawaddy. 171 U. S. 187. 190, 43 L. Ed.
130, 18 S. Ct. 831; The Edwin I. Morrison,
153 U. S. 199, 38 L. Ed. 688, 14 S. Ct.
823; The Caledonia. 157 U. S. 124. 39 L.
Ed. 644. 15 S. Ct. 537; The Rappahannock,
173 Fed. 829; The Southwark, 191 U. S.
1, 48 L. Ed. 65, 24 S. Ct. 1; In re Church-
ill, 198 Fed. 711, affirming, The Indra-
pura. 178 Fed. 591; Work v. Leathers. 97
U. S. 379, 24 L. Ed. 1012; Pacific Coast
Steamship Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co.,
94 Fed. 180, 36 C. C. A. 135. affirming The
Queen, 78 Fed. 155; Clark v. Richards. 1
Conn. 54. vSee The Medea. 179 Fed. 781,
103 C. C. K. 273. reversing decree, 173
Fed. 498; The Lockport, 197 Fed. 213;
Collier v. \'alentine, 11 Mo. 299, 49 Am.
Dec. 81.

The term "seaworthy," as now con-
strued, has relation to the article carried
and the different compartments of the
ship and their particular use, as well as
to the navigability of the vessel. The In-
drapura, 178 Fed. 591.

"Seaworthy," means that the boat must
be tight, staunch and strong, well fur-
nished, manned, victulated, and in all re-
spects equipped in the usual manner for
the trade in which she is engaged. Col-
lier V. Valentine, 11 Mo. 299, 49 Am.
Dec. 81.

There is no such thing as absolute sea-
worthiness in the law. The term "sea
worthy" is a relative one, and is always
construed in reference to a voyage in
which a vessel is to be engaged. Col-
lier V. Valentine, 11 Mo. 299, 49 Am.
Dec. 81.

"Seaworthiness in port, or for tempor-
ary purposes, such as mere change of
position in harl:)or, or proceeding out of
port, or lying in the offing, may be one
thing; and seaworthiness for a whole voy-
age quite another." McLanalian v. Uni-
versal Ins. Co. (U. S.), 1 Pet. 170, 184, 7
L. Ed. 98.

Latent defects. — The undertaking is not
4 Car— 51



discharged because the want of fitness is
the result of latent defects. Richelieu,
etc., Nav. Co. v. Boston Marine Ins. Co.,
136 U. S. 408, 34 L. Ed. 398, 10 S.
Ct. 934; The Edwin I. Morrison, 153
U. S. 199, 38 L. Ed. 688, 14 S. Ct.
823; The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 39
L. Ed. 644, 15 S. Ct. 537; The Ir-
rawaddy, 171 U. S. 187, 190, 43 L. Ed. 130,
18 S. Ct. 831; The Northern Belle (U.
S.), 9 Wall. 526, 19 L. Ed. 746; Work v.
Leathers, 97 U. S. 379, 24 L. Ed. 1012;
Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Bancroft-
Whitney Co., 94 Fed. 180, 36 C. C. A.
135, affirming The Queen, 78 Fed. 155;
The Lockport, 197 Fed. 213.

Barges. — The owner is liable for dam-
ages for the sinking of an old barge,
whose timber was decayed, by an ordi-
nary rub over a sandbar. The Northern
Belle (U. S.), 9 Wall. 526, 19 L. Ed. 746.

49. Must be seaworthy for particular
voyage.— The Nellie Floyd, 116 Fed. 80,
affirmed in Neilson v. Coal, etc., Supply
Co., 122 Fed. 617, 60 C. C. A. 175; The
Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 39 L. Ed. 644,
15 S. Ct. 537; The Indrapura, 190 Fed.
711, affirming 178 Fed. 591; Bell v. Reed
(Pa.), 4 Bin. 127. 5 Am. Dec. 398; Collier
V. Valentine, 11 Mo. 299, 49 Am. Dec. 81.

The shipowner's undertaking is not

50. Must be seaworthy for particular

cargo.— The Nellie Floyd, 116 Fed. 80,
affirmed in Neilson v. Coal, etc.. Supply
Co., 122 Fed. 617, 60 C. C. A. 175; The
Rappahannock, 173 Fed. 829; Work v.
Leathers, 97 U. S. 379, 24 L. Ed. 1012;
The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 124, 39 L. Ed.
644. 15 S. Ct. 537; International Nav. Co.
V. Farr, etc., Mfg. Co., 181 U. S. 218, 45
L. Ed. 830, 21 S. Ct. 591; The Silvia, 171
U. S. 462, 43 L. Ed. 241, 19 S. Ct. 7; The
Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 48 L. Ed. 65, 24
S. Ct. 1; Wright v. Grace Co., 203 Fed.
360; Collier v. Valentine, 11 Mo. 299, 49
Am. Dec. 81.

A ship may be seaworthy as to one sort
of cargo and unseaworthy as to another.
The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 48 L. Ed. 65,
24 S. Ct. 1.



4302



CARRIERS.



390S



be decided upon their particular facts and circumstances/'^ To be seaworthy as
respects cargo, the hull of a vessel must be so tight, stanch, and strong, as to re-
sist the ordinary action of the sea during the voyage, without damage or loss of
cargo. ^2 The vessel should be well furnished with suitable tackle, sails, or mo-
tive power, and furniture necessary for the voyage.-''^ Instances of what does ^^



merely that he will do and has done his
best to make the ship fit, but that the ship
is really fit to undergo the perils of the
sea and other incidental risks to which
she must be exposed in the course of the
voyage. The Caledonia, 157 U. S. 134,
39 L. Ed. 644, 15 S. Ct. 537.

"The same vessel may be seaworthy for
one voyage and entirely unseaworthy for
another." Collier v. Valentine, 11 Mo.
299, 49 Am. Dec. 81.

"When we come to consider what shall
constitute fitness or unfitness for the voy-
age we must take into account the nature
of the service which she is to perform,
and the dangers attending the navigation
in which she is engaged. This is very
different in the narrow current and shal-
low water of the river from what it is
in open seas or lakes or their bays and
inlets." The Northern Belle (U. S.), 9
Wall. 526, 19 L. Ed. 746.

51. International Nav. Co. v. Farr, etc.,
Mfg. Co., 181 U. S. 218, 45 L. Ed. 830,
21 S. Ct. 591; The Silvia, 171 U. S. 462,
43 L. Ed. 241, 19 S. Ct. 7; The Northern
Belle (U. S.), 9 Wall. 526, 19 L. Ed. 746;
Bell v. Reed (Pa.), 4 Bin. 127, 5 Am. Dec.
398.

Review of findings. — The Edwin I. Mor-
rison, 153 U. S. 199, 38 L. Ed. 688, 14 S.
Ct. 823; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ins.
Co., 107 U. S. 485, 27 L. Ed. 337, 1 S.
Ct. 582; United States v. Pugh, 99 U. S.
265, 25 L. Ed. 322; The Britannia, 153 U.
S. 130, 38 L. Ed. 660, 14 S. Ct. 795.

52. Must be tight, stanch and strong.
— Dupont, etc., Co. v. Vance (U. S.), 19
How. 162, 15 L. Ed. 584; The Northern
Belle (U. S.), 9 Wall. 526, 19 L. Ed. 746;
Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21
How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41.

53. Must be well furnished. — Propeller
Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How. 7,
16 L. Ed. 41; Bell v. Reed (Pa.), 4 Bin.
127, 5 Am. Dec. 398. See Collier v. Val-
entine, 11 Mo. 299, 49 Am. Dec. 81.

Spare sails. — Ships to be seaworthy
ought in general to have spare sails



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 150 of 214)