Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

and to the legal profession, is is offered as containing a summary of the law and cases relating to collisions between ships. Its publication at the present moment is explained by the recent issue of new International Regulations for preventing collision at sea, which comes into force on the 1st of September next.

I am indebted to my friend, Mr. C. F. Jemmett, of Lincoln's Inn and the Inner Temple, for valuable suggestions and assistance in preparing the following sheets for the press. For errors of arrangement, commission and omission (for which I alone am responsible) I ask the indulgence of the reader.

5, NEW SQUARE, LINCOLN'S INN,

March, 1880.

[blocks in formation]

ADD END A.

[ocr errors]

Page 26, note (o); see the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by

Brett, L.J., in The Parlement Belge (Court of Appeal, February

27, 1880 ; Times, February 28, 1880).

29, note (e) ; see the observations of Brett, L.J., on The Bold Buccleugh

in The Parlement Belge, ubi supra.

31, The nature of proceedings in rem was fully considered in The

Parlement Belge, ubi supra.

33, note (b); opposed to the view that the "wrongdoing" ship is

liable in Admiralty without regard to her ownership is the judg-
ment of the Court of Appeal in The Parlement Belge, ubi supra.
“ The liability to compensate must be fixed not merely on the
property but on the owner through the property," per Brett, L.J.,
ibid. In the same case, it was held that the shipowner is, in fact,
impleaded in an Admiralty action in rem, and that the proceed-

ings are not merely against the ship.

64, note (y); Lohre v. Aitchison is reported on appeal, 4 App. Cas. 755.

71, note (P); see The Consett, 28 W. R. 307; on app. 42 L. T., N. S., as

to the costs of cargo owners before the registrar and merchants.

93, The decision of Sir R. Phillimore that The Parlement Belge was

liable to arrest, was reversed by the Court of Appeal upon the

following grounds :-(1) That the person and the property of a

foreign Sovereign are exempt from the jurisdiction of a British

Court upon the same grounds, namely, that the exercise of such

jurisdiction is incompatible with the absolute independence of the

Sovereign of every superior authority ; (2) That this principle

applies to an Admiralty action in rem ; (3) That a ship owned

and used by a State or Sovereign for public purposes is exempt

from arrest, whether process in rem is considered as a proceeding

against the ship or against the shipowner; (4) That in an action

in rem the shipowner is indirectly impleaded. The question

whether the ship was exempt from arrest by virtue of the con-

vention mentioned in the text (p. 93) was not considered ; The

Parlement Belge, ubi supra.

158, 253, 259. It is intended by Order in Council to postpone the

coming into operation of Article 10 of the Regulations of 1880 as

to fishing boats' lights until the 1st of September, 1881.

271—279. By an Order in Council, dated the 18th of March, 1880,

the bye-laws for the River Thames printed in the Appendix,

pp. 271–274 (except No. 15, p. 271), have been repealed. By

the same Order the rules and bye-laws printed in italics (pp.

274–279), and headed as “Proposed” rules, have been enacted in

their place. The Schedule to the Order in Council contains an

additional bye-law, No. 30, imposing a penalty of £5 for infringe-

ment of the bye-laws. The new bye-laws come into force on the

1st of June, 1880.

TABLE OF CASES.

A.

66

72

PAGE “A. R. Wetmore," The, and the The “Epsilon,” 5 Bened. 147

87 Abraham,” The, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 34 ; 28 L. T., N. S. 775 10 Actæon,” The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 176

9 Active," The, 5 L. T., N. S. 773.. “Ada,” The, and The “Sappho," 27 L. T., N. S. 718; 1 Asp. Mar.

Law Cas. 475; on app. 28 L. T., N. S. 825 ; 2 Asp. Mar. Law
Cas. 4..

212 Addison v. Overend, 6 T. R. 766

48 Admiral Boxer,” The, Swab. Ad. 193

114 “ Adriatic," The, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 16 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 102......14, 155 African Steam Ship Co. v. Swantzy, 2 K. & J. 660 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 870 ; 27 L. T. 248; 4 W. R. 210

74 Agra,” The, and The “Elizabeth Jenkins,” L. R. 1 P. C. 501 ; 36 L. J. Ad. 16; 16 L. T., N. S. 755; 16 W. R. 735

.71, 199, 200,

212, 213 “ Agricola,” The, 2 W. Rob. 10

.111, 126, 129 “Aimo,” The, and The “Amelia," 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 96 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 118 ; 21 W. R. 707

.23, 169, 172, 200 Aitchison v. Lohre. See Lohre v. Aitchison. Alabama,” The, and The “Gamecock, 2 Otto, 695.

.39, 66, 86 “ Albert Edward,” The, 44 L. J. Ad. 49; 24 W. R. 179

.10, 36 Aldrich v. Simmons, 1 Stark. 214

42 Aleppo,” The, 14 L. T., N. S. 228; 35 L. J. Ad. 9.

11 “ Alexandria,” The, L. R. 3 A. & E. 574 ; 41 L. J. Ad. 94 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 565...

.41, 72 Aline,” The, 1 W. Rob. 111

.30, 31, 74 Aliwal,” The, 1 Sp. E. & A. 96

17 Allan,” The, and The “Flora,” 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 386 ; 14 L. T., N. S. 860......

.206, 226 “ Amalia,” The, Cail v. Papayanni, Br. & Lush. 151 ; 1 Moo. P. C. C., N. S. 471; 32 L. J. Ad. 191 ; 12 W. R. 24 ; 8 L. T., N. S. 805

32, 67, 71, 90, 92 34 L. J. Ad. 21

71 and The “Catherine Maria,'' Holt, 87

168 Ambassador,” The, 2 P. D. 37, note

23 America,” The, 3 Bened. 424; 10 Blatchf. 155 ; 2 Otto, 432.

..3, 8, 142, 176, 213, 218

66

לל

“ American,” The, and The “Syria,” Union Steamship Co. v. Owners of

The “Aracan," L. R. 4 A. & E. 226 ; 43 L. J. Ad. 24 ; 31 L. T.,

N. S. 42 ; 22 W. R. 845 ; on app. L. R. 6 P. O. 127 ; 43 L. J. Ad.

30 ; 22 W. R. 927; 31 L. T., N. S. 42.......

.69, 78, 79, 80,

145, 149, 153, 181, 212

“Andalusian,” The, 2 P. D. 231 ; 46 L. J. Ad. 77

235

Andalusian,” The, 3 P. D. 182 ; 47 L. J. Ad. 65 , 39 L, T., N. S.

204 ; 27 W. R. 172.

67, 70

,“ Anglo Indian,” The, 3 Asp. Mar. L. C. 13 33 L. T., N. S. 233 ; 23

W. R. 882

.145, 160

Ann and Mary,” The, 2 W. Rob. 189

168
“ Anne Caroline,” The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., 0. S. 208 ; 2 Wall. 538...173, 210

Annapolis,” The, and The “Golden Light,” Lush. 355 ; 1 Mar. Law
Cas., O. S. 183; 5 L. T., N. S. 692

..83, 113
and The “Johanna Stoll,” Lush. 295 ; 30 L. J. Ad.

201 ; 4 L. T., N. S. 417

.88, 92, 102, 126

Annie Lindsay,” The, 6 Bened. 290

168

Araxes,” The, and The “ Black Prince,” General Iron Screw Co. v.

Moss, 15 Moo. P.C. C. 122; 5 L. T., N. S. 39....

.142, 176, 212

Arbutus,” The, 2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. 136 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 208...102, 123

Argo," The, Swab. Ad. 462

.110, 114, 115

Ariadne,” The, 2 Bened. 472; 13 Wall. 475

..19, 218

“ Arthur Gordon,” The, and The "Independence,” Maddox v. Fisher,

Lush. 270 ; 14 Moo. P. C. C. 103; 4 L. T., N. S. 563 ; 9 W.R. 582

3, 8, 79, 179, 213, 218, 228, 233, 236

“ Athol,” The, 1 W. Rob. 374

45

Atlas,” The, 2 W. Rob. 502

.112, 114

2 Mar. Law Cas., O. S. Dig. 1480

223

10 Blatchf. 459 ; 3 Otto, 302

..18, 39, 66, 86, 217

Attlee v. The Packet Co., 21 Wall. 389

36

Attorney. General v. Case, 3 Price, 302

.119, 126

* Aurora,” The, and The “Robert Ingram,” Lush. 327.

146

Australian Direct Steam Navigation Co., In re The, L. R. 20 Eq. 325;

44 L. J. Ch. 676

31

« ForrigeFortsett »