RECENT DECISIONS OF SOUTH AMERICAN COURTS. LIGER. EDUARDO DE BARY & CIA vs. LUIS NICOL, AGENT OF S. S. LIGER. Federal Chamber of Appeals of the City of Buenos Aires, February 25, 1925. BILLS OF LADING—Judicial Survey-Jurisdiction by Agreement. 1. Proceedings taken before the Court by a consignee to establish the extent of loss or damage to a shipment are not governed by a clause in the Bill of Lading providing for jurisdiction of another Court as such proceedings are purely precautionary and have nothing to do with the responsibility for such loss or damage. 2. A clause in a Bill of Lading providing that any claim must be decided by the Courts of Bordeaux is valid. Dr. EDUARDO VIVOT, for Libellant. Dr. PEDRO MOHORADE, for Respondent. ADMINISTRATOR OF CUSTOMS OF BUENOS AIRES vs. DETRAZ HERMANOS. Supreme Court of Argentina, February 11, 1925. CUSTOMS DUTIES-Valuation. 1. In accordance with the Customs Law, duties on goods which are not listed in the tariff for fixing values shall be based upon the valuation declared by the Customs House Broker, supported by the original invoice of the goods. 2. If the importer declares a value which is considered low, the representatives of the Public Treasury may purchase the goods at the value named; if they do not do this, no fine may be imposed on the basis of any difference in value. (Published in "Gaceta del Foro" February 18, 1925, page 234.) G. AMSINCK COMPANY, INC. vs. DARIO BUZZACARINI. Court of Commerce of the City of Buenos Aires, March 6th, 1925. SALES-C. I. F. Contract-Carriage-Delivery-Customs Storage Charges. G. Amsinck Company, Inc. sold to the defendant a parcel of 2000 kilos of log-wood extract and 1000 kilos of other dye stuffs, C. I. F. Buenos Aires. Upon arrival of the goods at destination the purchaser refused 1925 A. M. C. to pay the purchase price, putting forth various excuses and the seller sued for breach of contract. The suit followed its course and the final decision was to the effect that the purchaser must pay. When the purchaser looked up his goods he found that they had been auctioned for storage and other charges by the Customs Authorities after the expiration of the two years deposit and he therefore refused to pay for the goods to which he claimed he was entitled. This was the occasion of a second suit for the recovery of the purchase price, which has resulted in the judgment of First Instance set forth above. 1. In a C. I. F. contract of sale, delivery of the merchandise is effected in the port of shipment and the seller arranges for the shipping of the goods and the placing of insurance against perils of the sea, for the account of the purchaser. 2. The delivery of the merchandise to the carrier at the port of shipment effects the symbolic delivery in favour of the purchaser, in accordance with Article 463 of the Argentine Code of Commerce and from that moment the purchaser has title to the goods and the carriage is for his risk and account. 3. If, upon arrival of the merchandise at the Port of Buenos Aires, the purchaser refuses to accept it and take up the documents and it is allowed to remain in the Customs House Deposits, it remains for the account and risk of the purchaser, the owner. 4. If two years pass with the goods in the Customs House and, according to the Regulations, the goods are auctioned for storage charges, the purchaser cannot refuse to pay the purchase price, alleging that he could not receive the merchandise. SUMMARIES OF RECENT CASES NOT REPORTED IN FULL. FREDERICK STARR No. 5. FREDERICK STARR CONTRACTING COMPANY, Libellant, v8. TUG GUIDING STAR, STANWOOD TOWING COMPANY, Claimant. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, March 16, 1925. Before: CAMPBELL, D. J. TOWING—1325. Liability of Tug for Striking Fixed Structures.-AIDS TO NAVIGATION—1151. Drawbridges-Duty of Owner. A tug which permits its barge to strike the abutment of Beach Channel drawbridge in ordinary weather is solely to blame for the damage. The facts that the draw was not protected with spring piles, and that proceedings were later commenced to obtain a War Department permit for pile protection, are immaterial, in view of evidence that the abutments were built according to War Department specifications and that the tug had often passed through with similar barges without any accident. BIGHAM, ENGLAR & JONES, Proctors for Libellant. MACKLIN, BROWN & VAN WYCK, Proctors for Claimant. GEORGE P. NICHOLSON, Corporation Counsel, for City of New York, Impleaded. JOHN TRACY. M. & J. TRACY CO., Libellant, v8. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN R. R., Respondent. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, March 10, 1925. Before: CAMPBELL, D. J. AIDS TO NAVIGATION-1151. Drawbridges. Steamer John Tracy passed through the D. L. & W. R. R. twin drawbridges over the Hackensack River on October 16, 1922. Before the vessel was clear, one of the bridges was swung, striking her stern. The bridge tender claimed that the vessel touched the other end of the bridge, forcing it to turn. Held: The bridge was voluntarily swung by the bridge tender, whether through careless haste or fear that the bow might strike could not be determined. Respondent held liable for damage to the vessel. FOLEY & MARTIN, for Libellant. J. E. MORRISSEY, for Respondent. 1925 A. M. C. THETIS-PROGRESSIVE. NEWTOWN CREEK TOWING CO., Libellant, v8. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Jan. 29, 1925. Before: CAMPBELL, D. J. AIDS TO NAVIGATION—1151. Drawbridges-TOWING 1325. Striking Drawbridge. On January 10, 1923, at 6 p. m., tug Progressive passed down Flushing Creek with tug Thetis (which had a disabled propeller) in tow alongside. Both were burning lights, and both blew 3 blasts for opening the City bascule bridge at Broadway. At the same time, tug Schenectady approached below the bridge and blew 3 blasts for opening. The bridge tender raised both leaves and called to the Progressive and Thetis to wait until the Schenectady had passed up, which they did. As soon as the Schenectady had passed, the Progressive started down with the Thetis. When both vessels were fairly in the draw, the bridge tender commenced to lower the leaves, striking the Thetis on the stack and the Progressive on the staff. Alarms were blown and the leaves were raised again. Held: 1. The Progressive and the Thetis gave proper signals. 2. It is immaterial whether the leaf was lowered just ahead of or on top of the tugs. In either event the tugs were proceeding properly and free from fault and could do nothing more than they did to prevent injury. ALEXANDER & ASH (EDWARD ASH, of Counsel), for Libellant. GEORGE P. NICHOLSON, Corporation Counsel (WALTER B. CAUGHLAN and CHARLES J. CARROLL, of Counsel), for Respondent. BARGE BRIMSTONE. GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, 08. ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA. United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1925. Before: THOMPSON, J.: AIDS TO NAVIGATION—1151. Drawbridges-TOWING 1325. Striking Drawbridge. On February 13, 1924 at 7.45 p. m., the barge Brimstone, in tow of Motor Launch No. 11, was proceeding up the Schuylkill River and approaching Passayunk Avenue draw bridge. At the same time the tug F. A. Churchman, was also approaching the draw, and overtaking the Motor Launch No. 11. It was clear and moonlight. The Motor Lauch No. 11 blew a signal for the tender of the draw, but received no answer. The F. A. Churchman also blew to the draw and was answered, and the draw was raised. The F. A. Churchman overtook the Motor Launch No. 11 and proceeded into the draw, whereupon the draw was lowered in such time that it struck and tore out both masts of the Brimstone. Held: City of Philadelphia at fault in that the bridge tender was negligent in the operation of the bridge. Motor Launch No. 11 also at fault in that it failed to make sure that its presence had been observed, and that the draw would remain open. CONLEN, ACKER, MANNING & BROWN, for Libellant. JOSEPH P. GAFFNEY, Philadelphia City Solicitor, and JOHN J. ELCOCK, Assistant City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia. ROSEMARY. WILLIAM NOIRMOT ET AL., Libellants, vs. SCHOONER ROSEMARY, ETC., Respondent. United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, February 12, 1925. Before: WADDILL, Ct. J. PERSONAL INJURY-131. Seaworthiness-Safe Place to Work-138. Medical Treatment-ARTICLES AND WAGES-142. Disrating1613. Bad Food. Libellants Noirmot and others sued the American Schooner Rosemary, trading between Virginia and Newfoundland, upon several causes of action. Noirmot, a mate, claimed damages for personal injury suffered by him in falling from a ladder which he alleged was in rotten condition, and also for the failure of the vessel to furnish proper medical care. Upon an examination of the evidence, held that the ladder was defective and the seaman was entitled to recover $300 for his injuries and $200 for failure to provide proper medical attention. All the libellants sued for damages because of shortage of food and its bad quality. They had made no complaint during the voyage and they had been paid off without making complaint. Held, that the claims on this point and for penalties because of non payment should be dismissed. The master had the right to demote the 1st mate to 2nd mate after he was incapacitated by injury, since the mate was unable to work and the ship was liable for his cure. JACOB L. MOREWITZ, for Libellants. GRONER & GARY and S. L. SINNOTT, for Claimant. |