ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Independent of statute, the fact that salvor and salved vessels belonged to the same owner did not prevent the owner of the salving vessel from claiming salvage against the cargo of the salved vessel, where there was no breach of the contract of carriage. 61

Nor did it prevent the crew of the salving vessel from claiming salvage for their work, both to the salved vessel and her cargo.62

And now it is provided by statute that "the right to remuneration for assistance or salvage services shall not be affected by common ownership of the vessels rendering and receiving such assistance or salvage services."63

Of the amount set aside for the crew, the master, on account of his responsibilities, receives a larger proportionate share, and the remainder is divided among the crew in proportion to their wages, unless special circumstances call for special allowances. Passengers or other persons aboard the salving ship may share if they render aid.

It is frequently necessary to make a salvage award as a whole, and then opportion it among different sets of salvors. The apportionment is made according to their relative merits, though the first set of salvors usually receive special consideration.65

Admiralty has jurisdiction of a suit by co-salvors to compel a refunding by a salvor to whom the entire award has been paid."

& Transp. Co. v. Pearsall, 90 Fed. 435, 33 C. C. A. 161; City of Puebla (D. C.) 153 Fed. 925; Gibson (D. C.) 160 Fed. 230.

61 Gilchrist Transp. Co. v. 110,000 Bushels of No. 1 Northern Wheat (D. C.) 120 Fed. 432.

62 Rees v. U. S. (D. C.) 134 Fed. 146; Glenfruin, 10 P. D. 103. 63 Act Aug. 1, 1912, § 1, 37 Stat. 242 (U. S. Comp. St. § 7990); Appx. 425; Roanoke, 214 Fed. 63, 130 C. C. A. 503.

64 Tijuca (D. C.) 247 Fed. 358.

65 Santipore, 1 Spinks, 231; Livietta, 8 P. D. 24; Strathnevis (D. C.) 76 Fed. 855; Annie Lord (D. C.) 251 Fed. 157. 66 McMullin v. Blackburn (D. C.) 59 Fed. 177.

SALVAGE CHARGEABLE AS BETWEEN SHIP AND

CARGO

69. A salvage award is charged against vessel and cargo in proportion to their values at the port of rescue,

each being severally liable for its share alone. Freight contributes pro rata itineris.

The salvor has a remedy in rem against the property saved.

The principle is that vessel, cargo, and freight money saved are to contribute according to their relative values at the port of rescue. The same percentage is charged against all, though portions were saved more easily and were at less risk; the reason being that differences in this respect would produce endless confusion, and tempt the salvors to save portions of the cargo without attempting to rescue other portions. Specie is subject to the same rule.67

If the voyage has not been completed, the court will prorate the freight money from the initial point to the port of rescue, and make only that proportion of the freight contribute. For instance, if the voyage is one-third completed at the time of the accident, the value of one third of the freight will be taken, on which salvage will be assessed."

As between ship and cargo, each is liable severally only for its own proportion. The salvor who neglects to proceed against both cannot recover his entire salvage from

One. 69

§ 69. 67 St. Paul, 86 Fed. 340, 30 C. C. A. 70; Longford, 6 P. D. 60. But where one series of operations saved the vessel and another the cargo, there may be separate proceedings against each, and different percentages assessed. St. Paul, supra.

68 NORMA, Lush. 124; Sandringham (D. C.) 5 Hughes, 316, 10 Fed. 556; Kaffir Prince, 31 T. L. R. 296.

69 Raisby, 10 P. D. 114; Jewell (D. C.) 41 Fed. 103; Alaska (D. C.) 23 Fed. 597. But the court may charge the entire amount against the ship, if the disaster was caused by any act for which the ship

The Lamington 7° contains an interesting compilation of salvage precedents.

A salvage service gives a maritime lien upon the property saved, enforceable by a proceeding in rem, and not dependent upon the salvor's retention of possession.71

It may be asserted against government property, if the possession of the government is not disturbed.72

Under Supreme Court admiralty rule No. 19, suit may also be brought in personam against the party at whose request and for whose benefit the salvage service has been performed.

But such proceedings, whether in rem or in personam, must now be brought within two years from the rendition of the service, unless there has been no reasonable opportunity to proceed within that time.73

would be responsible to the cargo. Lackawanna (D. C.) 220 Fed.

1000.

70 86 Fed. 675, 30 C. C. A. 271.

71 Sabine, 101 U. S. 384, 25 L. Ed. 982; Byrne v. Johnson, 53 Fed. 840, 4 C. C. A. 47; Barnett & Record Co. v. Wineman, 202 Fed. 110, 122 C. C. A. 222; Alcazar (D. C.) 227 Fed. 633.

72 Davis, 10 Wall. 15, 19 L. Ed. 875; Johnson Lighterage Co. No. 24 (D. C.) 231 Fed. 365.

73 Act Aug. 1, 1912, § 4, 37 Stat. 242 (U. S. Comp. St. § 7993), Appx. 425.

CHAPTER VII

OF CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHTMENT AND CHARTER

PARTIES

70-72. "Contracts of Affreightment" Defined, and Distinguished from

73.

Charter Parties.

Warranties Implied in Contracts of Affreightment against
Unseaworthiness and Deviation.

74. Mutual Remedies of Ship and Cargo on Contracts of Af

75.

76.

77-78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

freightment.

Entirety of Affreightment Contract.

Apportionment of Freight.

Ship as Common Carrier.

Bill of Lading-Making and Form in General.

Negotiability.

Exceptions in General.

Exception of Perils of the Sea.

"Charter Parties" Defined.

Construction of Charter Parties.

85. Conditions Implied in Charter Parties of Seaworthiness and

86.

87.

88.

against Deviation.

Cancellation Clause in Charter Parties.

Loading Under Charter Parties.

Execution of Necessary Documents under Charter Parties.

89. Cesser Clause in Charter Parties.

"CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHT MENT" DEFINED, AND DISTINGUISHED FROM

CHARTER PARTIES

70. A vessel may be operated by her owners on their own account, or she may be hired by her owners to others.

71. The hiring of a vessel to others is usually done by charter parties.

72. When a vessel is operated by her owners on their own account, or contracts direct with her shippers, such contracts are called "contracts of affreightment.”

The contracts of vessels heretofore discussed have been those incidental transactions tending to facilitate the object of her creation. The class of contracts with which we are now to deal spring directly out of her use as a business enterprise.

A vessel is made to plow the seas, not to rot at the piers. But, with the exception of those which are used as toys by the rich, they do not plow the seas for amusement. The reward earned for transporting cargo is called "freight." In BRITTAN v. BARNABY, Mr. Justice Wayne defines "freight" as the hire agreed upon between the owner or master for the carriage of goods from one port or place to another.

WARRANTIES IMPLIED IN CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHTMENT AGAINST UNSEAWORTHINESS AND DEVIATION

73. In contracts of affreightment there is an implied warranty of seaworthiness and against deviation.

The warranty of seaworthiness in the relations between vessel and shipper is one of the most severe known to the law. It is that, at the commencement of the voyage, the vessel shall be thoroughly fitted for the same, both as regards structure and equipment. It is not merely that the vessel owner will exercise reasonable care to have her in this condition, or that he will repair such things as are discoverable, but it is an absolute warranty of fitness for the voyage against even' such defects as are latent.2

§§ 70-72. 1 21 How. 527, 16 L. Ed. 177. Under the limited liability act, the word "freight" includes prepaid fare of passengers, but not a government subsidy. Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. 664, 52 L. Ed. 973; post, p. 371.

§ 73. 2 Northern Belle, 154 U. S. 571, 14 Sup. Ct. 1166, 19 L Ed. 748; CALEDONIA, 157 U. S. 124, 15 Sup. Ct. 537, 39 L. Ed.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »