Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 177 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 177 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


vessel herself, and he is not entitled to the benefit of the statutes for limitation
of liability, unless he surrenders the sum recovered for the benefit of the ship's
creditors. ^^

§ 4521. Insurance. — Insurance is no part of the owner's interest in the
ship or freight within the meaning of the law, and does not enter into the
amount for which the owner is held liable. ^^

relation between the provisions of the 32. La Bourgosne, 139 Fed. 433, 71 C,

two sections, which were both in the Act C. A. 489, reversing decree, 117 Fed. 261.

of 1851, was pointed out in considering 33. Freight earned by other vessels on

that act in Norwich Co. v. Wright (U. S.), through shipment. — Ralli v. New York,

13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585." La Bour- etc.. Steamship Co., 154 Fed. 286, 83 C. C.

gogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S. A. 290.

Ct. 664. 34. Damages for loss of vessel in colli-

30. La Bourgogne. 117 Fed. 261, revers- sion.— O'Brien v. Miller, 18 S. Ct. 140, 168
ing 139 Fed. 433, 71 C. C. A. 489. U. S. 287. 42 L. Ed. 469, affirming decree,.

31. Ship subsidy money. — Judgment, La 59 Fed. 621, and reversing decree, 67 Fed.
Bourgogne, 144 Fed. 781. 75 C. C. A. 647, 605, 14 C. C. A. 566.

affirmed in 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 35. Insurance.— The City of Norwich,

28 S. Ct. 664. 118 U. S. 468, 30 L. Ed. 134, 6 S. Ct. 1150.



4053 LIMITATIONS OF UABIUTY. §§ 4522-4525

§ 4522. Deduction for Expenses of Voyage.— The interest of the owners
in a "vessel and her freight then pending," within the meaning of Rev. St.,
§ 4283, Hmiting their hahihty in certain cases, is intended to include their en-
tire interest or investment in the adventure, and they are not entitled to make
any deduction from the gross amount of freight and passage money pending
on account of any expenses incurred for the voyage.^"

§ 4523. Expenses of Salvage and Allowance for Risk of Undertak-
ing. — Where a ship was stranded on a reef and so injured as to terminate her
voyage, in order to secure the statutory limitation of liability the owner, when
the vessel is not surrendered, must pay her value as she lay upon the rocks,
and the amount of her freight then pending, if any. Her value for such pur-
pose is not affected by the result of any subsequent salvage operations, whether
undertaken by the owner or others ; and where at great risk, hazard, and ex-
pense the owner succeeded in releasing her and having her towed to a port
where she was valued, there must be deducted from such valuation, for the
purpose of fixing the measure of his liability in limitation proceedings, not
only the expense incurred in her rescue, but also an allowance on account of
the risk and hazard of the salvage undertaking, which clearly affected her
value as she lay before such operations were commenced.^"

§ 4524. Substitution of Another Vessel. — The owner can not relieve
himself from the obligation of the statute by merely substituting some other
boat of his own as the vehicle of transportation. Where a lighter sank at a
pier while being loaded, injuring a large part of her cargo, the fact that the
uninjured cargo was then transferred by her owner to another vessel, and that
such lighter did not deliver any part of it, does not relieve the owner in pro-
ceedings for limitation of his liability from the necessity of surrendering as
"pending freight" the freight which she would have earned if she had carried
the cargo. ^^

§ 4525. Waters, Vessels and Interests to V^hich Applicable. — Extent
of Territorial Operation. — A law of limited liability of shipowners being a
part of our maritime code, the extent of its territorial operation is necessarily
coextensive with that of the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and
that by the settled law of this country extends wherever public navigation ex-
tends — on the sea and the great lakes, and the navigable w'aters connecting
therewith. It is not confined to the class of subjects which limit the power
to regulate commerce. •^•' The Shipowner's Limited Liability Act applies to

So held where the vessel at fault for col- In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L. Ed. 631,
lision, as result of which she took fire and 11 S. Ct. 840; Norwich Co. v. Wright (U.
sank, was insured against fire. The Scot- S.), 13 Wall. 104, 20 L. Ed. 585; The Lot-
land, 118 U. S. 507, 30 L. Ed. 153, 6 S. tawanna (U. S.), 21 Wall. 558, 22 L. Ed.
Ct. 1174; The Great Western, 118 U. S. 054; The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24. 26 L. Ed.
520, 30 L. Ed. 156, 6 S. Ct. 1172; Hoffeld lOOl; Providence, etc.. Steamship Co. v.
V. United States, 186 U. S. 273, 46 L. Ed. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 578, 27 L. Ed.
1160, 22 S. Ct. 927. 1038, 3 S. Ct. 379, 617. See ante, "Part

36. Deduction for expenses of voyage. of Maritime Law."

— The Jane Grey, 99 Ju-d. 5s2. The Limited Liability .A.ct applies to the

37. Expenses of salvage and allowance stranding of a ship which took place on
for risk of undertaking. — Pacific Coast Co. Devil's Bridge, on the north side of and
V. Reynrjlds, 114 I-'cd. HTT, 52 C. C. A. 497. near Gay Head, at the west end of Mar-

38. Substitution of another vessel. — Ralli tha's Vineyard, just where Vineyard Sound
V. New York, etc., .Steamship Co., l."")! Fed. opens into the main sea. Though within
286, 83 C. C. A. 290. a few rods of the island (which is a county

39. Extent of territorial operation. — of Massachusetts) and within the jaws of
The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 468, 30 the headland, it was on the navigable
L. Ed. 134, 6 S. Ct. 1150; O'Brien v. Mil- waters of tlic United States, and no state
ler, 168 U. S. 287, 42 L. Ed. 469, 18 S. Ct. legislation can prevent the full operation
140; Butler v. Boston, etc., .Steamship Co., of the maritime law on those waters. .So
130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed. 1017, 9 S. Ct. 612; held where the lia])ility itself arose from



§ 4525



CARRIERS.



4054



vessels only which are engaged in foreign commerce, and commerce between
the states, not the purely internal commerce and navigation of a state, ^" and
it applies to foreign as well as domestic vessels.^ ^ It was settled in The Scot-
land, 105 U. S. 24, 26 L. Ed. 1001, that a foreign ship is entitled to obtain in
the courts of the United States the benefit of the law for the limitation of lia-
bility of shipowners.'*- It applies to vessels engaged in rivers or inland navi-
gation"*^ and to vessels used on the Great Lakes. ■*■* The fourth section of the
act of Congress of June 19, 1886, extended the Limited Liability Act to all kinds
of vessels, not only seagoing vessels, but those used on lakes or rivers, or in in-
land navigation, including canal boats, barges, and lighters,*^ and it has been
held that it applies to a scow used as a derrick boat,-**^ and a barge with a pile
driver mounted thereon,*"^ and the right does not depend upon the fact that
the vessel was actually engaged upon a voyage at the time of the act or event
against which the owner seeks to limit his liability, but the statute applies to a
vessel at a dock being altered and refitted,*^ and to one which had been beached



the state law. Butler v. Boston, etc.,
Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 527, 32 L. Ed.
1017, 9 S. Ct. 612.

The law of limited liability may be ap-
plied to navigable rivers above tidewater,
such as the Savannah River, and to ves-
sels engaged in commerce on such a river.
In re Garnett. 141 U. S. 1, 35 L. Ed. 631,

11 S. Ct. 840; The Genesee Chief v. Fitz-
hugh (U. S.), 12 How. 443, 13 L. Ed. 1058;
Fretz V. Bull (U. S.), 12 How. 466, 13 L.
Ed. 1068; Jackson v. The Magnolia (U.
S.), 20 How. 296, 15 L. Ed. 909; Nelson
V. Leland (U. S.), 22 How. 48, 16 L. Ed.
269; The Commerce (U. S.), 1 Black 575,
17 L. Ed. 107; The Hine (U. S.), 4 Wall.
555. 18 L. Ed. 451; The Belfast (U. S.),
7 Wall. 624, 19 L. Ed. 266; The Eagle (U.
S.), 8 Wall. 15, 19 L. Ed. 365; The Daniel
Ball (U. S.), 10 Wall. 557, 19 L. Ed. 999;
The Montello (U. S.), 20 Wall. 430, 22 L.
Ed. 391, and Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S.
G29. 27 L. Ed. 1056, 3 S. Ct. 434.

Vessels navigating high seas between
parts of a state. — The act applies. Lord
V. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed.
224. See, also, Lehigh Valley R. Co. v.
Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 36 L. Ed. 672,

12 S. Ct. 806.

40. Moore v. American Transp. Co. (U.
S.), 24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674.

41. Foreign vessels. — ^Constable v. Na-
tional Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 51, 38 L.
Ed. 903, 14 S. Ct. 1062; The Scotland, 105
U. S. 24, 26 L. Ed. 1001.

42. La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 52 L.
Ed. 973, 28 S. Ct. 664.

43. Ships employed in river or inland
navigation. — Propeller Niagara v. Cordes
rU. S.). 21 How. 7, 16 L. Ed. 41; Lord v.
Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed.
224; Moore v. American Transp. Co. (U.
S.). 24 How. 1, 16 L Ed. 674; Craig v. Con-
tinental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 35 L. Ed.
886, 12 S. Ct. 97; The New York, 175 U.
S. 187, 44 L. Ed. 126, 20 S. Ct. 67.

The words "any vessel of any descrip-
tion whatsoever, used in rivers or inland
navigation." — Moore v. American Transp.
Co. (U. S.). 24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674.



Use of the phrase "inland navigation."
See Moore v. American Transp. Co. (U.
S.), 24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674.

44. Vessels used on Great Lakes. — •
Moore v. American Transp. Co. (U. S.),
24 How. 1, 16 L. Ed. 674; Craig v. Con-
tinental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 35 L. Ed.
886, 12 S. Ct. 97; The New York, 175 U.
S. 187, 44 L. Ed. 126, 20 S. Ct. 67. See
Walker v. Transportation Co. (U. S.), 3
Wall. 150, 18 L. Ed. 172.

Where a general ship, employed in nav-
igating the lakes, receives goods under a
contract of shipment, corresponding in
terms to the usual bill of lading for the
transportation of goods on inland waters,
her liability must be determined by the
rules of law applicable to carriers of
goods upon such inland waters. Propel-
ler Niagara v. Cordes (U. S.), 21 How.
7, 16 L. Ed. 41.

45. In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L
Ed. 631, 11 S. Ct. 840. See, also, Lehigh
Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S.
192. 36 L. Ed. 672, 12 S. Ct. 806.

46. Scow used as derrick boat. — The
owner of a scow built for the carrying
of stone is entitled to limitation of lia-
bility for negligent injury inflicted by her
under Rev. St., § 4289, as amended by Act
June 19, 1886, § 4, although she was at
the time being used as a derrick boat in
unloading other vessels. The Sunbeam,
195 Fed. 468.

47. A barge with pile driver mounted
thereon. — A barge with a pile driver
mounted thereon held a vessel within
Rev. St., §§ 4283, 4289 (U. S. Comp. St.,
1901, pp. 2943, 2945), giving the right to
a limitation of liability. In re Ross, 196
Fed. 921.

48. Vessel at dock.— The right of the
owner of a vessel to a limitation of lia-
bility under the provisions of Rev. St. §§
4283-4285 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, pp. 2943,
2944]. does not depend upon the fact that
the vessel is actually engaged upon a
voyage at the time of the doing of the
act or the happening of the event against
which the owner seeks to limit his lia-



4055 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. §§ 4525-4529

and was partially dismantled."*^

Vessel Abandoned to Underwriter. — Section 4283, Rev. Stat., applies to a
vessel which has been wrecked and abandoned to the underwriters ; they are
relieved under the statute from their liability for negligence while engaged in
saving the wreck or the cargo.'' "^^

Charterer of Lighter. — A lighterage company which contracts to transfer
cargo from one ship to another and for that purpose charters a lighter, the
lighterman, who employs the stevedores, and superintends the work, being
furnished by the owner, is not entitled to a limitation of liability, under Rev.
St., § 4286 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2944], for a loss of cargo by the capsiz-
ing of the lighter through negligent loading.-""!

§ 4526. Proceedings against Which Available. — The limitation of lia-
bility is applicable to proceedings in rem against the ship as well as to proceed-
ings in personam against the owner; the limitation extends to the owner's prop-
erty as well as to his person.^ -

§ 4527. Freighters Entitled to Participate. — "On the Same Voyage."

— The phrase "on the same voyage" is added to confine the participation in
the apportionment to the freighters of a single voyage, and not to permit the
shipowner to bring into the compensation losses sustained on prior or other
voyages.-''^

§ 4528. Effect of Stipulation in Bill of Lading. — A stipulation in a bill
of lading that the matters and things set forth shall be received as prima facie
evidence of the facts provided for and of the truth of the matter set forth
does not prevent a carrier from seeking a limitation of liability under the
United States statutes.^* a bill of lading issued by a railroad company, pro-
viding that, if any part of the property shall be carried by water, such carrier
shall be subject to the conditions in the bill of lading, including the condition
that no carrier shall be liable for the perils of the sea, or by fire, or from acci-
dents of navigation, does not operate to prevent the application of the limita-
tion of the liability act when the property is destroyed by fire on a barge.-"*^

§ 4529. Remedies Reserved. — The sixth section in § 4287, Rev. Stat., in
terms, saves the remedy to which any party may be entitled against the master,
officer, or mariner of such vessel, for negligence, fraud or other malversation.^''''

bility, but the statute applies equally to knowledge. The C. H. Northam. 181 Fed.

a vessel at a dock in her home port, 983.

where she is being altered and refitted, 50. Vessel abandoned to underwriter.

and where she has remained for several ■ — Craig v. Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S.

months. In re Michigan Steamship Co., 638, 35 L. Ed. 886, 12 S. Ct. 97.

133 Fed. 577, decree reversed McGill v. Section 4283 applies to the liability of

Michigan Steamship Co., 144 Fed. 788, 75 the owner of a vessel on such voyage, for

C. C. A. 518. damage for death of an employee. Craig

49. Partially dismantled vessel. — A v. Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 35

steamer, which had been taken on shore L. Ed. 886, 12 S. Ct. 97.

by her owners for the purpose of being 51. Charterer of lighter. — Smith t\

dismantled, and from which the masts Booth. 110 Fed. 680, affirmed in 122 Fed.

and engines had been removed, so long 626, 58 C. C. A. 479.

as the dismantling process had not pro- 52. Proceedings against which availa-

ceeded so far as to render her wholly in- ble. — The City of Norwicli, 118 U. S. 468.

capable of l)eing navigated as a tow or 30 L. Ed. 134, 6 vS. Ct. 1150.

otherwise, continued to be a "vessel," 53. On the same voyage. — La Bour-

Vv^ithin the meaning of Rev. St., § 4289, as gognc. 210 U. S. 95, 52 L. Ed. 973, 28 S.

amended by Act June 19, 1886, c. 421, § Ct. 664.

4, 24 Stat. 80 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 54. Eflfect of stipulation in bill of lad-

2945); and her owners may maintain pro- ing. — The Hoffmans, 171 Fed. 455.

ceedings for a limitation of liability for 55. Tlie Hoffmans, 171 Fed. 455.

damage done by her, where she floated 56. Remedies reserved. — Walker v-

and went adrift in a storm without their Transportation Co. (U. S.), 3 Wall. 150,



§§ 4529-4532 carriers. 4056

While the right to common-law remedies is reserved, it is so reserved subject
to the provisions of the statute which sanction proceedings for the limitation
of liability, as a result of which resort to proceeding to limit liability is avail-
able after a judgment at common law.^'^

§ 4530. Waiver of Rig-ht.— The right of a part owner of a steamship to a
limitation of his liability for a personal injury to the proportion of the dam-
ages which his interest in the vessel bears to all the interests, given by Act
June 26, 1884, c._121, § 18, 23 Stat. 57 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 2945), is a
personal one, which may be waived, and is so waived where, after suit against
a part owner for injury to a seaman, he files a petition for limitation of his lia-
bility "to the amount of the value of his interest" in the vessel, makes no re-
quest for further limitation in the trial court, and, after the amount of dam-
ages has been fixed, stipulates with the claimant for a reduction of such
amount.-''^ Such right is not waived by failure to assert such right in the col-
lision suit, nor by an exception to the libel therein, ^^ jiqi- \^y giving a super-
sedeas bond on appeal from a decree for collision damages.*'*^

§§4531-4547. Harter Act— § 4531. Purpose,— The plain purpose of
the Harter Act w'as to relieve carriers by water of some of the harsher rules
of obligation in force before its passage.^^ Its object was to modify the rela-
tions previously existing between the vessel and her cargo. This is apparent
not only from the title of the act but from its general tenor and provisions.*^^

§ 4532. Construction. — The trend of judicial decision in the United States
has been to construe the Harter Act strictly, and not to extend the carrier's ex-
emption from liability to doubtful and uncertain cases, but to leave such lia-
bility as it was defined and enforced by the law maritime and by the common
law, unless the act plainly and unequivocally asserts a dififerent liability.^^
In determining the efi^ect of the Harter Act in restricting the operation of
general and well-settled principles, the court will treat those principles as still
existing, and limit the relief from their operation afforded by the statute to
that called for by the language itself of the statute.*'^

Prospective Not Retrospective. — All bills of lading issued since the pas-
sage of the Harter Act are governed by its express provision ; ^^ but contracts
made before the passage of the act are unaffected by its provisions.^^

18 L. Ed. 172. See Craig v. Continental Co. v. Hurst, 200 Fed. 711, 119 C. C. A.

Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 35 L. Ed. 886, 12 127.

S. Ct. 97. 61. Plain purposes.— See The Irra-

57. Gleason v. Duffy, 116 Fed. 298, 54 waddy, 171 U. S. 187, 43 L. Ed. 130, 18
C. C. A. 100. ^- Ct. 831; The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1,

58. Waiver of right.— Cook v. Smith, "^^.l" ^f- ^^: ^^^ f- ^\- ^- ^^^ „ ^ ^^^
ior7 TT^^ KOQ ir.n i^ n A or\i ^ffi^^^r^rr 62. Ihe Chattahoochee, 173 U. S. 540,
187 I'ea. 538, 109 L. C. A. 304, arhrming j ^tj on-i m c n^ ac-,. t: „ t^^i^
A^^^^^ -lAn -c^A TOO 43 L,. ha. 801, 19 b. Ct. 491 the Dela-
decree, 146 red. 628. ,„^ tt p ^^rv Ar, t t^j ,~r.-, -.r- o

, , ware, 161 U. S. 459, 40 L. Ed. 771, 16 S.

59. A vessel owner held not to have q^ 51g

waived the right to limitation of liability 63. Construction.— Decree, 107 Fed.

against claims for collision damages by 294, modified in The Germanic, 124 Fed.

the failure to assert such right in the col- j, 59 q C. A. 521, affirmed in 25 S. Ct.

hsion suit, nor by an exception to the 317, igg u. S. 589, 49 L. Ed. 610.
hbel therein. Monongahela River Con- 64. Flint v. Christall, 18 S. Ct. 831, 171

sol. Coal, etc., Co. v. Hurst, 200 Fed. 711, u. S. 187, 43 L. Ed. 130, reversing 82

119 C. C. A. 127. Fed. 472.

60. The right of a vessel owner to a 65. Prospective not retrospective. —
limitation of liability, as against a decree Knott v. Botany Worsted Mills, 179 U.
for collision damages recovered against S. 69, 45 L. Ed. 90, 21 S. Ct. 30; The
him in a suit in personam, given by Rev. Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 48 L. Ed. 65, 24
St. § 4283 (U. S. Comp. St.. 1901, p. 2943), S. Ct. 1.

is not waived by the giving of a super- 66. Compania De Navigacion La Flecha

sedeas bond on appeal from such decree. v. Brauer, 168 U. S. 104, 42 L. Ed. 398,
Monongahela River Consol. Coal, etc., 18 S. Ct. 12.



4057



LIMITATIONS 01'' LIABILITY.



§§ 4532-4533



Which Section Governs Determined from Acts Causing Loss.^ — A case
may occur which, in different aspects, falls within both §§ 1 and 3 of the Harter
Act, and if this be true, the question which section is to govern must be deter-
mined by the primary nature and object of the acts which cause the loss.*''^

Section 3 must be read with § 2 to effectuate the purpose of the act.^^

§ 4533. Effect of Clauses in Bills of Lading Relieving from Liability.

— A claimant who sets up the Harter Act and relies upon it, must take the
burdens with the benefits, and no discussion of the terms of the bills of lading,
if they might lead to a greater limitation of liability, is necessary .'^^ The Har-
ter Act in all cases coming within its provisions, overrides and nullifies any
such stipulations in a bill of lading,"^ *^ but the Harter Act has no application
to such stipulations by private carriers.'''^



67. Which section governs determined
from acts causing loss. — The Germanic,
196 U. S. 589, 49 L. Ed. 610, 25 S. Ct.
317.

68. The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 48 L.
Ed. 65, 24 S. Ct. 1.

69. Effect of clauses in bills of lading
relieving from liability. — Knott v. Botany
Worsted Mills, 179 U. S. 69, 45 L. Ed.
90, 21 S. Ct. 30; The Kensington, 183 U.
S. 263, 46 L. Ed. 190, 22 S. Ct. 102; The
Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, 49 L. Ed. 610,
25 S. Ct. 317.

"Prior to the Harter Act it was estab-
lished that a common carrier by sea could
not, by any agreement in the bill of lad-
ing, exempt himself from responding to the
owner of cargo for damages arising from
the negligence of the master or crew of
the vessel. Liverpool, etc., Co. v. Phe-
nix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 32 L. Ed. 788,
■9 S. Ct. 469, following Railroad Co. v.
Lockwood (U. S.), 17 Wall. 357, 21 L.
Ed. 627. But of course the responsibili-
ties of the carrier were subject to modifi-
cation by law, and with respect to ves-
sels transporting merchandise from or
between ports of the United States and
foreign ports they were substantially
modified by the Harter Act." The Jason,
225 U. S. 32, 56 L. Ed. 969, 32 S. Ct. 560.
In The Irrawaddy, 171 U. S. 187, 43 L.
Ed. 130, 18 S. Ct. 831, the opinion, after
■stating that, as the law stood before the
passage of the act, the shipowner could
not contract against his liability and that
of his vessel for loss occasioned by neg-
ligence or fault in officers and crew, and
that in this particular, the owners of
American vessels were at a disadvantage
as compared with the owners of foreign
vessels, who iriight so contract, proceeded
to say that "congress thought fit to re-
move the disadvantage, not by declaring
that it should be competent for the own-
ers of vessels to exempt themselves from
liability for the faults of the master and
crew by stipulations to that effect con-
tained in I)ills of lading, but by enacting
that, if the owners exercised due diligence
in making their ships seawortliy and in
duly manning and equipping them, there
should be no liability for the navigation



and management of the ships, however
faulty." The Jason, 225 U. S. 32, 56 L.
Ed. 969, 32 S. Ct. 560. See, also. The
Delaware, 161 U. S. 459, 40 L. Ed. 771,
16 S. Ct. 516; The Southwark, 191 U. S.
1, 48 L. Ed. 65, 24 S. Ct. 1.

In determining the effect of this stat-
ute in restricting the operation of gen-
eral and well-settled principles, the
proper course is to treat those principles
as still existing, and to limit the relief
from their operation afforded by the stat-
ute to that called for by the language it-
self of the statute. The Irrawaddy, 171
U. S. 187, 43 L. Ed. 130, 18 S. Ct. 831.

In reference to the preceding para-
graph the court said: "This language is
laid hold of as indicating that the deci-
sion proceeded upon the ground that con-
gress thought it improper to permit own-
ers of vessels to contract for exemption
from liability. What it really means, as
will be observed, is, that congress went
further, and by its own enactment ex-
empted them from liability, under given
conditions, for the consequences of faulty
navigation." The Jason, 225 U. S. 32, 56
L. Ed. 969, 32 S. Ct. 560.

The Irrawaddy, 171 U. S. 187, 43 L.
Ed. 130, 18 S. Ct. 831, there was no agree-
ment between shipowner and cargo
owner respecting general average, nor
respecting the consequences of a strand-
ing or other peril that might result from
the negligence of the master or crew of
the vessel. The Jason, 225 U. S. 32, 50
E. Ed. 969, 32 S. Ct. 560.

70. Knott V. Botany Worsted Mills,
179 U. S. 69, 45 L. Ed. 90, 21 S. Ct. 30;
Calderon v. Atlas Steamship Co., 170 U.
S. 272, 42 L. Ed. 1033, 18 S. Ct. 588; The
Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 48 L. Ed. 65, 24
S. Ct. 1; The Kensington. 183 U. S. 263,
46 L. Ed. 190, 22 S. Ct. 102.

71. Private carriers. — When a charter
party gives to the charterer the full ca-
pacity of the ship, the owner is not a



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 177 of 214)