For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER severable controversy removable to federal court may exist in action between one or more plaintiffs and single defendant.-Id. 58 (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) Effect of removal of separable controversy under Judicial Code, § 28 (Comp. St. § 1010), is to transfer entire cause. -Slate v. Hutcherson, 15 F. (2d) 551. 60 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) If one of defendant insurance companies was citizen of different state than either plaintiff or her assignor, separable controversy existed as to such defendant, entitling it to removal of entire suit.-Lynch v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 15 F. (2d) 725. 61 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Existence of a separable controversy depends on allegations of complaint, not on allegations of petition for removal.-Highway Const. Co. v. McClelland, 15 F. (2d) 187. VI. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE AND EF. 86(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Petition for removal of causes to federal court on ground of diversity of citizenship need not contain affirmative allegation that defendant is a nonresident of the state.-Queensboro Nat. Bank of the City of New York v. Kelly, 15 F. (2d) 395. 86(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Existence of a separable controversy depends on allegations of complaint, not on allegations of petition for removal.-Highway Const. Co. v. McClelland, 15 F. (2d) 187. St. §§ 1010, 1120, 1121]).-Young v. Southern VIII. PROCEEDINGS IN CAUSE AFTER (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) United States District Court is invested with complete and plenary jurisdiction of parties and of subject-matter of case removed from state court.-Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Ware, 15 F. (2d) 171. 115 (U.S.D.C.N.C.) Allegation relative to cause of action, which was stated in bill of complaint in state court, but not urged after removal, should be stricken.-Poisson v. Williams, 15 F. (2d) 582. 118 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Amendment to complaint after removal of cause for personal injuries to federal court, electing that case should be governed by Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act, held not to defeat jurisdiction of federal court.-Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Ware, 15 F. (2d) 171. 18 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Federal court held without jurisdiction of cause removed from state court on ground of separable controversy, where amended complaint eliminated such controversy, notwithstanding absence of motion to remand, in view of Judicial Code, § 37 (Comp. St. § 1019), imposing on court duty to remand. -Highway Const. Co. v. McClelland, 15 F. (2d) 187. RETROSPECTIVE LAWS. 86(10) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Statement in affi- See Constitutional Law, 190-197. davit of defendant on motion for removal to federal court, with which plaintiff takes no REVENUE. issue, must be accepted as accurate.-Feaster See Taxation. v. Southern Ry. Co., 15 F. (2d) 540. 89(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Under Judicial Code, on filing of sufficient petition and bond for removal to federal court, should accept same $ 28, 29 (Comp. St. §§ 1010, 1011), state court, See Appeal and Error. REVIEW. RISKS. and proceed no further.-Queensboro Nat. Bank See Master and Servant, 204-217. of the City of New York v. Kelly, 15 F. (2d) 395. Under Judicial Code, §§ 28, 29 (Comp. St. See Highways.. §§ 1010, 1011), removal petition presents only a question of law for state court as to whether, assuming facts stated in petition to be true, ROADS. RULES OF COURT. SALES. face of record discloses a removable cause.-Id. See Court Rules Cited. 89 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Complaint in action against railroad and resident sergeant in its police force for death of guard during strike See Judicial Sales; Vendor and Purchaser. held, in connection with affidavits filed by defendants, to show that sergeant was made a party only to prevent removal.-Feaster v. Southern Ry. Co., 15 F. (2d) 540. 89(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Under Judicial Code, 88 28, 29 (Comp. St. $$ 1010, 1011), state court has power to examine petition and bond for removal to determine their sufficiency, and, if insufficient, may disregard them and proceed. Queensboro Nat. Bank of the City of New York v. Kelly, 15 F. (2d) 395. Issues of fact, arising on petition for removal, are determined in federal court; state court being required to accept as true allegations of fact in petition.-Id. Under Judicial Code, §§ 28, 29 (Comp. St. S$ 1010, 1011), state court has no power to determine question of fact with reference to diversity of citizenship alleged in petition for removal.-Id. 95 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Jurisdiction of federal court depends on compliance or noncompliance with law of Congress, and is not affected by order of state court, either refusing or granting removal.-Queensboro Nat. Bank of the City of New York v. Kelly, 15 F.(2d) 395. VII. REMAND OR DISMISSAL OF CAUSE. 107(9) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Injunction order restraining prosecution of cases in state court after removal to federal court held appealable (Judicial Code, §§ 28, 128, 129 [Comp. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CON- tion validity of contract for sale of prunes or 53(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) In buyer's action for seller's breach of coal contract, evidence that parties contracted held for jury.-Fidelity Fuel Co. v. Martin Howe Coal Co., 15 F. (2d) 470. II. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT. 73 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Requirements that "these cabinets" have particular finish held to mean all cabinets ordered, and not a large percentage only.-F. A. D. Andrea, Inc., v. Dodge, 15 F.(2d) 1003. 82(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Seller's dissatisfaction with buyer's financial responsibility must be made in good faith, and cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously declared.-Fidelity Fuel Co. v. Martin Howe Coal Co., 15 F. (2d) 470. III. MODIFICATION OR RESCISSION OF CONTRACT. (A) By Agreement of Parties. 89 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Buyer's agreement not to rescind for breach of warranty held sufficient consideration for seller's promise to adjust.— Lamborn v. Northern Jobbing Co., 15 F. (2d) 897. (C) Rescission by Buyer. 121 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Buyer, asserting dominion over sugar not of quality bought without notice of rejection to seller, held estopped to rescind contract,-Grainger Bros. Co. v. G. Amsinck & Co., 15 F. (2d) 329. 124 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Buyer, rescinding contract for purchase of sugar because of quality, need not return goods.-Grainger Bros. Co. v. G. Amsinck & Co., 15 F.(2d) 329. 127 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Buyer, rescinding contract for purchase of sugar because of quality, must give seller notice of rejection and election to rescind.-Grainger Bros. Co. v. G. Amsinck & Co., 15 F. (2d) 329. Where buyer asserted dominion over sugar not of quality bought, institution of suit to rescind and recover price was not notice in itself of rescission.-Id. 134 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Buyer of sugar held not entitled to sell, as perishable, sugar not of quality bought, without notice to seller that he has elected to rescind contract and offer of reasonable time for removal.-Grainger Bros. Co. v. G. Amsinck & Co., 15 F.(2d) 329. IV. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. (C) Delivery and Acceptance of Goods. VII. REMEDIES OF SELLER. submit (F) Actions for Damages. 388 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Instruction ting question whether bulk of cabinets delivered corresponded to sample rather than whether number of defective cabinets delivered was so material as to justify cancellation held erroneous.-F. A. D. Andrea, Inc., v. Dodge, 15 F. (2d) 1003. VIII. REMEDIES OF BUYER. (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Buyer of sugar, who did not give seller required notice of election to rescind contract, held not entitled to sell goods to satisfy lien for freight, demurrage, and purchase money paid.-Grainger Bros. Co. v. G. Amsinck & Co., 15 F. (2d) 329. (C) Actions for Breach of Contract. 404 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Buyer, discovering that sugar is not as represented, may rescind contract, or retain sugar and sue for damages.Lamborn v. Northern Jobbing Co., 15 F.(2d) 897. (D) Actions and Counterclaims for Breach of Warranty. 428 (App.D.C.) Purchaser after breach of but may recoup his damages when sued for purwarranty is not required to repudiate contract, chase price.-Joseph v. Heckman, 15 F.(24) 732. 166(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Buyer of "granulated sugar," being refined white sugar free from molasses, etc., dry and free running, held warranted in refusing to accept yellow 442(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) In action for breach "Java white" sugar containing molasses and foreign matter.-Grainger Bros. Co. v. G. Amof warranty in sale of commodity having no market value, parties have wide range of insinck & Co., 15 F. (2d) 329. quiry as to value.-Lamborn v. Northern Jobbing Co., 15 F. (2d) 897. as 166(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) "Bulk," used in provision of Uniform Sales Act, denotes goods, as distinguished from sample (Uniform Sales Act Pa. § 14 [P. L. 543; Pa. St. § 19662]). -F. A. D. Andrea, Inc., v. Dodge, 15 F. (2d) 1003. "Goods," used in phrase "bulk of goods," held an appositional genitive, defining "bulk" (Uniform Sales Act Pa. § 14 [P. L. 543; Pa. St. § 19662]).-Id. "Bulk of goods" means same as "goods," as used in Uniform Sales Act (Uniform Sales Act Pa. 14 [P. L. 543; Pa. St. § 19662]).—Id. Instruction treating "bulk," as used in Uniform Sales Act, as meaning sum less than all goods sold, held erroneous (Uniform Sales Act Pa. $$ 14, 16 [P. L. 543; Pa. St. §§ 19662, 19664]).-Id. 172 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Buyer, after asking for substituted form of payment or relief from burden of contract, cannot be heard to say that delay of seller in considering proposition operates as breach of abandoment.-Brown v. J. C. Shaffer Grain Co., 15 F. (2d) 514. 181(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence showing seller's delay of shipments was due to buy ers' request for substituted form of payment on contracts held to show no abandonment or breach by seller.-Brown v. J. C. Shaffer Grain Co., 15 F.(2d) 514. 182(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Seller's good faith in declaring itself dissatisfied with buyer's financial responsibility held for jury. Fidelity Fuel Co. v. Martin Howe Coal Co., 15 F.(2d) 470. 182(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Whether number of defective cabinets delivered was so material as to defeat purpose of parties held for jury. F. A. D. Andrea, Inc., v. Dodge, 15 F. (2d) 1003. VI. WARRANTIES. 288(2) (App.D.C.) Alleged delay of buyer in repudiating contract after discovery of defect held immaterial where repudiation was not sought, but defense is by way of recoupment for damages for breach of warranty.-Joseph v. Heckman, 15 F.(2d) 732. 442 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Difference in values of sugar as represented and as delivered at place of delivery held measure of damages, in view of particular facts.-Lamborn v. Northern Jobbing Co., 15 F. (2d) 897. SALVAGE. I. RIGHT TO COMPENSATION. ing two ferryboats held attached to both and not 18 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Crew alternately operatentitled to recover for salvage services rendered to either.-The Eastern Shore, 15 F. (2d) 82. Libelant held member of crew of ferryboat, and not entitled to recover for salvage services.-Id. Libelant, though off duty, held member of crew of ferryboat, and not entitled to recover for salvage services.-Id. 21 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Salvors of stranded vessel held not chargeable with fault in failing to at once bring wrecking anchor to scene of stranding, in view of their limited information and delay incident to such course.-Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation v. Atlantic Towing Co., 15 F. (2d) 648. II. AMOUNT AND APPORTIONMENT. 26 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Actual values of property saved and of the instrumentalities used are proper to be considered in fixing amount of salvage award.-Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation v. Atlantic Towing Co., 15 F. (2d) 648. 29 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In awarding salvage apprehension of danger on part of those originally in charge of salved property should be considered in determining quantum of salvage. -The Cornell, 15 F. (2d) 375. 30 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Salvage award of $15,000 and interest for services rendered stranded vessel valued at $100,000, carrying freight and cargo valued at over $300,000 by tugs valued at $250,000, held not excessive.-Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation v. Atlantic Towing Co., 15 F. (2d) 648. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 37 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Stranding of vessel held due to failure of master to make proper use of information available to him, rather than to owner's failure to provide proper chart as affecting liability of cargo for salvage services.Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation v. Atlantic Towing Co., 15 F. (2d) 648. 38 (U.S.D.C.La.) Two tugs and pump boat, of aggregate value of $255,000, held entitled to award of $12,000, one-fourth to be paid members of crew for salvage of steamship, salved value of which was $237,700, with loss by listing and beaching of $7,300.-The Nicarao, 15 F. (2d) 73. Captain and chief engineer of tug, who were not prompt in reporting for duty at time tugs were used for salvage, held entitled to only 50 per cent. of their proportionate share of salvage.-Id. Person supplying barge for use of diver in checking leak in steamship and acting as helper held entitled to $750 as share of salvage of ship, salved value of which was $237,700, with loss by listing and beaching at $7,300.-Id. Helper to diver in repairing leak to ship held entitled to salvage award of $150 as share of salvage of ship, salved value of which was $237,700, with loss by listing and beaching $7,300.-Id. Divers repairing leak in sinking ship, salved value of which was $237.700, with loss by listing and beaching of $7,300, held entitled to award of $4,000 and $3,000, respectively.-Id. III. LIEN AND RECOVERY. 49 (U.S.D.C.La.) Court, in awarding salvage, has duty to safeguard marine property from spurious claims, as well as to recognize meritorious ones.-The Nicarao, 15 F. (2d) 73. 51 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) To justify reversal, award of salvage must have been based on clear mistake, violation of just principles, or departure from authority; that reviewing court would have granted less relief is insufficient. The Cornell, 15 F. (2d) 375. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. (D) District Property, Contracts, and 81 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.W.Va.) School board, having taken assignment of claims of laborers and materialmen on default of contractor for school building, held entitled to recover against surety on contractor's bond.-Hartford Actident & Indemnity Co. v. Board of Education of Dist. of Beaver Pond, in Mercer County, W. Va., 15 F. (2d) 317. Bond executed by contractor for school building must be construed in light of Code W. Va. c. 75, § 12, protecting laborers and materialmen.-Id. Provision in bond executed by school building contractor, attempting to provide that no right of action shall accrue to any other than obligee, held contrary to Code W. Va. c. 75, § 12, and void.-Id. SEAMEN. 12 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Seaman is bound to vessel for voyage, and vessel must retain him, unless his own good or safety of vessel justify putting him ashore in foreign port.-McAvey v. Emergency Fleet Corporation, 15 F. (2d) 405. Incompetence to perform duties of important position in which he has shipped will justify seaman's discharge abroad.-Id. Master must make any discharge of seaman at foreign port, and must determine whether discharge is justified.-Id. To protect himself, under Comp. St. § 8367, master discharging seaman in foreign port must secure consent of consul.-Id. Consul's action, approving discharge of sea man in foreign port, is not binding on either party, and will not avail master, where obtained by his deceit and collusion.-Id. Consul's action in approving discharge of seaman in foreign port will be regarded as prima facie correct.-Id. Seaman, wrongfully discharged in foreign port, can sue and recover whatever damages he sustained, basing action on shipping articles. -Id. 26 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Seamen's omission to file libel until after sale of vessel held not to constitute laches, in view of owner's promise of full payment on sale of steamer.-The Lakeport. 15 F. (2d) 575. 27 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Seamen, seeking recovery on contract of employment, are entitled to maritime lien for wages under Act June 5, 1920, 30, subsec. P (Comp. St. § 81464000). -The Lakeport, 15 F. (2d) 575. Purchaser of vessel is put on inquiry as to existing liens or claims for seamen's wages especially as no statute of limitation bars recovery. Id. Failure to record bill of sale of vessel under Comp. St. § 7778, may be considered in determining equities between purchaser and seamen filing libel in rem for wages after sale. -Id. 28 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Libel by seamen for agreed percentage of net profits due from fishing operations held to state cause of action, though amount due each had not been reduced to a certainty.-The I. S. E. 2, 15 F. (2d) 749. 29(5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Jurisdiction invoked in seamen's libel for injuries while fastening cable on dock is ex delicto, and must be determined from locality of injury.-The Montezuma, 15 F. (2d) 580. Court held without jurisdiction in admiralty of libel by seaman for injury sustained after going on dock for purpose of fastening vessel. -Id. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. 3 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Defendant cannot avail himself of illegality of search of premises or seizure of property in which he claims to have no interest.-Rosenberg v. U. S., 15 F. (2d) 179. 3 (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Commissioner must exercise own judgment as to whether facts in affidavit constitute probable cause for search warrant, and determination is conclusive, unless judgment is arbitrarily exercised.-Gracie v. U. S., 15 F. (2d) 644. 7 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Demand of Secretary of Agriculture under Packers and Stockyards Act 1921, § 402 (Comp. St. § 87164t), for access and right to copy books of accounts and records of packing companies, held unreasonable, and in violation of Fourth Amendment.-Cudahy Packing Co. v. U. S., 15 F. (2d) 133. 7 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Defendant held not entitled to complain of search made of father's farm and shack occupied by father apart from defendant.-Graham v. U. S., 15 F. (2d) 740. Guaranty of Const. Amend. 4, against unreasonable search or seizure, is a personal right or privilege, available only to owner or claimant of property subject to unreasonable search or seizure.-Id. 7 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Defendant, who was not occupant of premises, could not complain that search was unreasonable.-Cantrell v. U. S., 15 F. (2d) 953. Consent to search renders validity of search warrant immaterial.-Id. 7 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Under evidence showing occupants disclaimed knowledge of liquor found in garage in basement of dwelling, seizure by officer without formal application for search warrant held not unreasonable.-U. S. v. 185 Cases Scotch Whisky, 15 F. (2d) 563. Officer seizing property after disclaimer by occupant of dwelling in basement of which liquor was found cannot be said to have vio-87 (U.S.D.C.La.) Liability for collision at- 41 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Charter, giving charter- 46 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Specific provision of Owner held not estopped from prohibiting 54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Under charter party 55 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Under requisition char- Voluntary payment of brokerage commis- Right of United States to defend claim for taches to ship, hull, engines, tackle, apparel, 106 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Conditions of bill of VII. CARRIAGE of GOODS. 120 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ship and owner are not 121(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Seaworthiness of 125 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Literal reading of lib- In absence of express provisions in bill of Under bill of lading authorizing deviation Liberty of call clause in bill of lading must be Under bill of lading authorizing deviation 126 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Ship is not liable for 249. Vessel delivering flour damaged in part by 56 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) There being no privity Subcharterer has no greater title or control 58 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence held to breach of contract of transportation held ad- 132(4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Shipowner has bur- 58(3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Damages for delay in 132(5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Under evidence, V. LIABILITIES OF VESSELS AND OWN- 76 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Owner of tug held liable 86 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence held to Where float being moved into slip was dam- though sea water entered bridge deck space Under evidence, damage to cargo from sea Due diligence to make ship seaworthy as to 132 (5) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) In libel for damage 137 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Exemptions in contract For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER shipping document within that act, and so do not extend to negligent failure to make vessel seaworthy (Comp. St. §§ 8029-8035).-The Cornelia, 15 F. (2d) 245. 138 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) In libel for damage to flour cargo from sulphuric acid, negligence, if any, in what was done after drums of acid were found to be leaking, held a fault in management of vessel, for which it was not liable, under Harter Act, §§ 1, 3 (Comp. St. §§ 8029, 8031). -The Milwaukee Bridge, 15 F.(2d) 249. 140 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Liability of ship held limited by bill of lading referred to in dock receipt and accepted by shipper without objection. -Lawrence Leather Co. v. Norton, Lilly & Co., 15 F.(2d) 101. 141(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Clauses of bill of lading, if applicable, held not to exempt vessel from liability for damage from negligence in stowage, custody, or care of cargo.-The Milwaukee Bridge, 15 F. (2d) 249. 141 (4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Clauses of bill of lading, if applicable, held not to exempt vessel from liability for damage from unseaworthy condition of vessel.-The Milwaukee Bridge, 15 F. (2d) 249. 142 (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Clause in bill of lading requiring suit for loss or damage of goods to be brought within six months after delivery held valid.-Armour & Co. Aktieselskab v. Gjeruldsen, 15 F. (2d) 553. Under bill of lading requiring suit for lost or damaged goods to be brought within six months, libel commenced after six months from delivery was properly dismissed.-Id. Clause in bill of lading limiting time for suit for loss or damage to goods applies to claim for shortage in delivery.-Id. Correspondence between shipper and representative of charterer relative to adjustment of claims held not waiver on part of vessel or owner, of provision in bill of lading limiting time for bringing suit.-Id. 142 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Letter held both notice of claim and a claim of damages, within two clauses of bill of lading.-The Cornelia, 15 F. (2d) 245. 154 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Lien for freight or general average is maritime, governed by equitable principles, and with reference_to_usages and customs of trade.-Frederick H. Leggett & Co. v. 500 Cases of Tomatoes, 15 F. (2d) 270. vessel for cargo damage which he paid, including right to recover general average.-Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Bonnasse, 15 F. (2d) 203. 187 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) General average adjustment is determined according to the law of the port of destination.-Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Bounasse, 15 F. (2d) 202. 198 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Charterer, settling claims of cargo owners, held not a volunteer as affecting his right to recover on general average bond furnished by owner.-Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Bonnasse, 15 F. (2d) 203. Charterer, paying claims of cargo owners who had libeled vessel and for which he was secondarily liable, held subrogated to rights of cargo owners enforceable against general average bond given by owner.-Id. 201 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Lien for freight or general average is maritime, governed by equitable principles, and with reference to usages and customs of trade.-Frederick H. Leggett & Co. v. 500 Cases of Tomatoes, 15 F. (2d) 270. Shipowner cannot refuse to deliver goods to cargo owner without cash payment of estimated amount of general average due, if reasonable security is tendered.-Id, Bill of lading provision, in which consignees agree to deposit with shipowner estimated amount of general average requested by shipowner, pending adjustment, held unreasonable. -Id. XI. LIMITATION OF OWNER'S LIABILITY. 203 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Comp. St. § 8021, authorizing limitation of liability of owner of vessel, are to be given a liberal construction.Kitsap County Transp. Co. v. Harvey, 15 F. (2d) 166. 207 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Action against vessel by passenger for injuries received in fall from raised platform held proper case for limitation of liability, under Comp. St. § 8021, in view of evidence on question of negligence.Kitsap County Transp. Co. v. Harvey, 15 F. (2d) 166. 207 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Under bills of lading not authorizing departure from usual course, ship and owner held liable without limitation for loss and damage to cargo resulting from ship's deviation from usual course.-The Frederick Luckenbach, 15 F. (2d) 241. VIII. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS. 157 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Contract for carriage of passengers, made and entered on in Rouma-209 (1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Claimant in default nia, held governed by law of that country.-The Constantinople, 15 F. (2d) 97. 165 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) The right to proceed in rem for breach of contract to carry passengers is based on a maritime lien.-The Constantinople, 15 F. (2d) 97. Passengers who were left at a way port, without fault on their part, held entitled to damages for breach of contract.-Id. 166(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Carrier held to have failed to exercise requisite high degree of care in maintaining in women's cabin on steamship platform with seats for passengers raised ten inches above aisle.-Kitsap County Transp. Co. v. Harvey, 15 F. (2d) 166. woman, in limitation proceeding is not entitled to further notice.-The Hewitt, 15 F. (2d) 857. 209 (3) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) If steamship company, before issuing bills of lading, established route via certain ports as regular and customary course, it would have been competent to show shipper's knowledge thereof, as negativing claim of deviation on issue of limitation of liability. The Frederick Luckenbach, 15 F. (2d) 241. In proceeding for limitation of liability, proof that steamship on one prior voyage had called at certain ports held insufficient to establish customary route at variance from that implied in bills of lading.-Id. SLANDER. 166(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Aged who was injured by fall from raised platform when leaving her seat on steamship, held not guilty of contributory negligence, because of See Libel and Slander. knowledge acquired of such raised platform at time of entering seat.-Kitsap County Transp. Co. v. Harvey, 15 F. (2d) 166. X. GENERAL AVERAGE. 186 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Time charterer, who had issued bills of lading and was in position STATUTE OF FRAUDS. See Frauds, Statute of. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. of bailee of cargo, held to have remedy against See Limitation of Actions. |