...page 405

(H.

servants, or assigns" of the defendants. (Ct. of App.) Uzielli and Co. v. Boston Marine Insurance Company 16. Ship-Loss of Barratry-Causa proxima.--Semble (per Lords Blackburn and Bramwell), that there is no rule of insurance law that where barratry is the remote cause of a loss it is to be looked to rather than the immediate cause. (H. of L,) Cory v. Burr 17. Ship-Loss of Capture-Barratry-Free from capture and seizure-Smuggling-Seizure-Causa proxima.-Where a ship is insured under a time policy of marine insurance covering the ordinary perils including "barratry of the master," there being also a warranty "free from capture and seizure and the consequences of any attempt thereat," and the ship is seized by foreign customs authorities in consequence of the barratrous act of the master in smuggling, and proceedings are taken to procure condemnation and confiscation of the ship, the underwriters are not liable for expenses incurred in resisting the proceedings of the foreign customs authorities, the causa proxima of the loss being seizure and not barratry. of L.) Cory v. Burr 18. Total loss-Absolute-Policy against-Rights under-Perils of the sea-Constructive loss becoming absolute.-A policy against absolute total loss only covers any such loss of the thing insured as is sufficiently complete to entitle the owners to recover without notice of abandonment. Where, however, a ship is driven ashore, and by the continuous action of the perils of the seas becomes a total loss, the assured are entitled to recover, even though the ship were at the time of being driven ashore a constructive total loss only. (Q. B. Div.) Levy and Co. v. The Merchants' Marine Insurance Company 19. Warranty-Place of navigation—Admiralty chart-Effect given thereto-Judicial notice-In construing a warranty in a policy of marine insurance not to navigate in a particular part of the sea, the court should take judicial notice of the geographical positions of, and general names applied to a district as shown on the Admiralty chart. (H. of L.) Birrell v. Dryer 20. Warranty"No St. Place of navigation Lawrence"-Effect of.-The words "No St. Lawrence between Oct. 1 and April 1" in a warranty in a policy of marine insurance preclude the ship insured from navigating, not only the river, but also the Gulf of St. Lawrence. (H. of L.) Birrell v. Dryer

See Principal and Agent.

MARINE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Policies not issued-Calls-Liability of member— Estoppel. Where a mutual ship insurance company-the practice of which was, that after the expiration of the first time policy no new policy was issued, but instead thereof stamped receipts were given for calls-passed resolutions with its members' assent transferring its business and effects to a new company, on the terms of the new company paying all the debts and liabilities of the old, and a member of the old company continued to keep his vessels on the books of the new company, but in accordance with the practice of the old company received no policy of insurance, such member is liable to the new company for calls, he being estopped from saying that the contracts, towards the losses on which he is asked to contribute, were invalid by reason of their not being in writing or not being stamped in accordance with 30 & 31 Vict. c. 23. (Ct. of App.,

109

109

407

267

267

affirming Q. B. Div.) Barrow-in-Furness Mutual Ship Insurance Company Limited v. Ashburner page 443, 527

MARITIME LIEN.

See Collision, No. 29-Master's Wages and Disbursements, Nos. 4 to 12-Necessaries, Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7— Wages, Nos. 5, 6.

MARSHAL'S FEES. See Practice, No. 14. MASTER.

See Bottomry, No. 2-Carriage of Goods, Nos. 2, 3, 4-Charter-party, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4-Collision, Nos. 1, 4, 32, 53-Damage to cargo-Limitation of Liability, No. 7-Master's Wages and Disbursements-Salvage, No. 25-Stoppage in Transitu, No. 2-Towage, No. 1.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

See Master's Wages and Disbursements, Nos. 9, 10. MASTERS WAGES AND DISBURSEMENTS. 1. Double pay-Nonpayment of Wages-Merchant Shipping Act 1854, s. 187-"Without sufficient cause."-Where, in an action for master's wages, it appears that, at the institution of the suit, accounts are outstanding between the owners and the plaintiff, and that the same have not been taken or settled, and that within two days of the institution of the suit the wages are paid, the owners have not refused to pay "without sufficient cause " within the meaning of sect. 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to recover ten days' double pay. (Adm. Div.) The Turgot

2. Double pay-Wages to date of final settlementMerchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 187-Merchant Seamen (Payment of Wages and Rating) Act 1880, 8. 4-Question as to liability.-Under the provisions of sect. 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, and sect. 4 of the Merchant Seamen Act 1880, as to the nonpayment of wages, the right to recover ten day's double pay and wages to the time of final settlement is not enforceable where there is a bona fide question as to liability. (Adm. Div.) The Rainbow

3. Disbursements-Victualling contracts Payment by master for provisions-Misappropriation by managing owner-Liability.-A master on his appointment agreed with the managing owner that he, the master, should find the provisions for the officers and crew at a certain rate per day. The master subsequently agreed with the managing owner, who was also a ship's store dealer, that the managing owner should supply the provisions and should charge them against moneys of the master which he held in his hands. The managing owner, however, debited his co-owners with the costs of the provisions, and fraudulently applied the master's money to his own purposes. Held, in an action in rem against the owners by the master to recover wages and disbursements, that the master was entitled to credit for such amount in the settlement of his accounts with the owners, the fraudulent application of his money by the managing owner being a wrong done to the co-owners for which he was not responsible. (Adm. Div.) The Dora Tully

4. Lien-Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), s. 10. Quære, has a master under sect. 10 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 a maritime lien for his wages and disbursements? (Ct. of App.) The Beeswing

548

479

550

484

5. Lien-Agreement to forego-Onus of proof.Where shipowners, in answer to a claim for wages, plead an agreement between the managing owners and the plaintiff that the plaintiff shall, instead of receiving his wages, allow it to remain in the hands of the managing owners, and has thereby foregone his right against the ship, the onus is upon the defendants to clearly prove that there was an express arrangement to that effect, before the court will deprive the plaintiff of his right. (Adm. Div.) The Rainbow

..page 479

6. Lien-Bills of Exchange-Master iiable thereon. -Where a master has incurred liability by drawing bills of exchange for goods supplied to the ship, although such liability is not discharged, he has a maritime lien on the ship to the extent of that liability. (Adm.) The Fairport 7. Lien-Bills of exchange-Payment not pressed— Laches.-The act of a master in not compelling payment against his ship for a liability that he has incurred by drawing bills of exchange, because he believes that they will be met by his owners, until he is actually sued upon them himself, does not amount to such laches as will forfeit his lien against a purchaser. (Adm.) The Fairport 8. Lien-Charter-party-Disbursements for ship and charterers-Rights in respect thereof.-Where a ship is chartered under a charter providing that the master shall be appointed by the charterers, that the owners are to provide and pay for all provisions and wages of captain and crew, and for the necessary equipment and efficient working of the ship, that the captain is to be dismissed by the owners if he fails to give satisfaction and that the charterers shall provide and pay for all coals,pilotages, port charges, &c., the master is the servant of the shipowners, and hence he has a right in rem for his wages and such disbursements as are necessary for the navigation of the ship, and which the charterers had not by the provisions of the charter-party undertaken to pay; and semble, per Brett, M.R., if the charterers had refused to make these disbursements, and without them the ship could not be navigated, the master would be entitled to charge them against the shipowners. (Ct. of App.) The Beeswing...

9. Lien-Charter-party- Disbursements for ship and charterers-Rights in respect thereof-Drafts on owners.—Where a ship was chartered under a charter providing that the captain should be appointed and dismissed by the charterers, that the shipowners were to provide and pay for all provisions and wages of the captain and crew, and for the necessary equipment for the efficient working of the ship, and that the charterers should pay for all the coals, port charges, and other expenses, except those above stated, and the captain instituted an action in rem against the owners of the ship claiming in respect of disbursements, consisting of provisions and coals, in respect of which latter item he had given a draft on the shipowners, which draft had been dishonoured, the Court held that the master, having notice of the charter-party, was agent for both the owners and the charterers in respect of the liabilities of each, as determined by the charter, and that therefore the owners were liable in respect of the provisions, but not in respect of the coals. (Adm. Div.) The Turgot. 10. Lien-Charter-party-Master servant of charterers. Semble, where a master is the servant of the charterers and not of the shipowners, he has no right against the ship or owners in respect of wages and disbursements. (Ct. of App.) The Beeswing.....

62

62

484

548

11. Lien Disbursements Continuance Purchasers for value-Laches.-A master of a ship has a maritime lien for his disbursements made in the service of the ship, and such lien attaches to the ship in the hands of bona fide purchasers without notice of the lien at the time of the purchase, unless it be lost by the laches of the master, (Adm.) The Fairport

..page 62 12. Lien-Loss of Permitting owners to retain wages. A master who, after receiving a portion of his wages from the managing owners, elects to allow the balance to remain in their hands at interest, by so doing loses his lien, and cannot recover the balance in rem, but if he has had no opportunity of receiving his wages, or has been refused payment of them on demand, the mere fact of his allowing them to remain in the managing owners' hands after they become due will not deprive him of his remedy. (Adm. Div.) The Rainbow

13. Misconduct-Dismissal-Forfeiture of right to damages-Mortgagee-Taking ship to sea.-The taking away by a master of a ship to sea, after she has been taken possession of by the mortgagees, against their wishes, is such misconduct, even when done by the orders of the mortgagor, his original employer, as will disentitle him to recover in an action in rem as against the mortgagees any compensation for dismissal by the mortgagees, upon their recovering possession of the vessel, before the term of his engagement has expired. (Adm. Div.) The Fairport .....

See Practice, No. 31.

MATERIAL MEN.

See Necessaries-Practice, No. 35.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 5, 23, 29, 30-Collision, Nos. 11 to 20.

MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT (SCOT. LAND) ACT 1856.

See Sale of Ship, No. 2

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS. See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 8, 9, 10-Collision, Nos. 3, 25, 34, 53, 55, 85-General Average, Nos. 3,4Master's Wages and Disbursements, Nos. 1, 2– Poor Rate. No. 2-Salvage-No. 15-Seaman's Discharge-Wages, Nos. 3, 7.

"MERCHANT'S RISK."

See General Average, No. 1.

MERSEY.

See Collision, No. 28.

MISCONDUCT OF SALVORS. See Salvage, Nos. 30, 31.

MISDIRECTION.

See Charter-party, No. 9.

MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE.

See Marine Insurance, No. 13-Master's Wages and Disbursements, No. 13-Practice, Nos, 14, 35.

NARROW CHANNEL. See Collision, Nos. 79, 80.

479

348

NECESSARIES.

1. Advance to managing owner-Right against ship. The plaintiffs, shipbrokers, had made advances to the managing owner of a foreign ship for purposes other than the ship. The managing owner applied for a further advance, but the freight of the ship being in the hands of other persons, the plaintiffs refused, but agreed to supply money for necessaries for the ship, provided they could get security for the sums advanced. The plaintiffs handed a cheque for 3501. to the managing owner as though for the purchase of necessaries, and this cheque the managing owner handed back to the plaintiffs in part payment of the old advance. At the same time the plaintiffs made a further advance of 2001. for necessaries to the managing owner, and it was agreed that, in consideration of the amount of the two advances for necessaries supplied, the managing owner should return the amount with interest and charges, and that the plaintiffs should be at liberty to cover the amount by insurance on the ship. Held that, under the circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover so much of 3501. as had been actually expended in necessaries (semble, because the transaction enabled the managing owner to expend that sum, or part thereof, in necessaries.) (Adm.) The Heinrich Bjorn

...page 145

2. Advance to managing owner-Rights of Lender -Material men.-A contract entered into with the managing owner of a ship for a loan of money to be laid out in necessaries places the lender in the same position as a material man supplying the goods. (Ct. of App.) The Heinrich Bjorn... 391 3. Lien-Material men- British ship-Purchase for value-Vice-Admiralty Court Act 1863, s. 10, sub-sect. 10.-Material men supplying necessaries to a British ship in a possession in which a ViceAdmiralty court is established, do not, under the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act 1863, s. 10, sub-sect. 10, acquire a maritime lien, and the ship when in the hands of subsequent purchasers for value without notice of the debt cannot be made chargeable with the necessaries. (Priv. Co.) The Rio Tinto.....

224

391

4. Lien-Material men-Foreign ship-Purchase for value-3 & 4 Vict. c. 55, s. 6.-3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, does not create a maritime lien in respect of necessaries supplied to a foreign ship, and hence material men cannot enforce their claim by proceedings in rem against the ship when in the hands of subsequent purchasers for value. (Ct. of App.) The Heinrich Bjorn 5. Premiums of insurance- Security for advances. -Premiums paid by a shipbroker at the owner's request, to procure insurance on the ship, for the purpose of covering advances for necessaries made by the shipbroker, are not themselves necessaries. (Adm.) The Heinrich Bjorn ...... 145 6. Priority of liens-Possessory lien-Material men.-Material men who have a possessory lien on a foreign ship are entitled to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of such ship in priority to other material men having no such lien, notwithstanding that the latter have recovered judgment against the ship before the material men having the lien have recovered judgment against the ship. (Adm.) The Immacolata Concezione

7. Priority of liens-Possessory lien-Material men- -Seamen's wages.-As against material men having a possessory lien a mariner's claim for wages earned before that lien commenced, viaticum, subsistence money for the time between leaving the ship and returning home, and the

208

1. Harbour-Berwick-Rateable value-Tonnage dues-Harbour dues Wet dock. - Under the local Acts applicable to Berwick Harbour the commissioners are entitled to levy harbour and tonnage dues on vessels entering and leaving the harbour, and in addition thereto to levy 2d. for every ton on any ship entering a wet dock made under the above Acts. The assessment committee, in assessing the commissioners to the poor rate as occupiers of the wet dock, included the harbour and tonnage dues. Held, that as the wet dock was not the sole meritorious cause of the commissioners' rights to the dues, the harbour and tonnage dues ought not to have been taken into account, but only the additional 2d. per ton on vessels actually using the dock. (Q. B. Div.)

Berwick Harbour Commissioners (apps) v. Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of Tweedmouth (resps.)

.page 532

2. Lighthouse Exemption from rateability · General authority-Local authority-Merchant Shipping Act 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 430. -The 430th section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854 exempting lighthouse authorities from payment of rates and taxes in respect of lighthouses is only applicable to lighthouses under the control of general lighthouse authorities, and is not applicable to a lighthouse under the control of a local authority. (Q. B. Div.) The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. The Overseers of Llaneilian

248

3. Lighthouse-Telegraph station-Dwelling-house -Rateable value - Beneficial occupation. — A lighthouse, consisting of a tower and dwellinghouse adjoining and owned by a body of public trustees, who have the right to levy such dues as are necessary to defray expenses and no more, is not rateable to the poor rate in respect of the tower, which consisted of a light room and telegraph room, it being incapable of profitable occupation, but the adjoining dwelling-house is to be assessed at a valuation which takes into consideration the existence of a tower and its use as a lighthouse and not at its value, supposing it to be disconnected from and independent of the tower. (Ct. of App., varying Q.B. Div.) Mersey Docks and Harbour Board V. Overseers of Llaneilian 248, 358

PORT.

See Carriage of Goods, Nos. 14, 15, 16, 25.

PORT OF REFUGE.
See General Average, No. 2.

POSSESSORY LIEN.

See Necessaries, Nos. 6, 7-Practice, No. 35.

PRACTICE.

1. Action in rem-Power to add parties-Collision --Clause under Lord Campbell's Act-R. S. C., Order XVI., r. 11.-Plaintiffs commenced an action in rem under Lord Campbell's Act on the 4th Jan. 1884 in respect of loss of life by collision at sea on the 10th Jan. 1883. After the 10th Jan. 1884, it having been decided in the interim by the Court of Appeal that the Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction in such actions, the plaintiffs applied to add as defendants the owners of the wrongdoing ship personally. Application refused upon the ground that, under the provision of Order XVI., r. 11, proceedings against the parties proposed to be added would only be deemed to have commenced from the date of the service upon them of the writ of summons, and hence the action would not have been commenced against them within the time provided by Lord Campbell's Act, and the court being of opinion that it had no power to add parties as defendants in personam in an action in rem, thought it ought not to make the order merely because the objection as to time was an objection which ought strictly to be taken at a later stage. (Adm. Div.) The Bowesfield

2. Admission of claim-Counter-claim for larger amount-Judgment upon claim-R. S. C., Order XL., r. 11.-Where the plaintiff's claim for freight is admitted, but the defendants set up a counter-claim for damages for breach of a contract of carriage for a larger amount, the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment upon the claim, under Order

265

..page 48

XL., r. 11, as upon an admission in the pleadings. (Q. B. Div.) Mersey Steamship Company Limited v. Shuttleworth and Co. 3. Admission of claim-Frivolous counter-claımJudgment on admission.—Semble, where a plaintiff's claim for freight is admitted, but the defendants set up a counter-claim which is clearly frivolous for damages for breach of contract of carriage for a larger amount, the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment on his claim, and to have the sum claimed brought into court to await the result of the action. (Q. B. Div.) Mersey Steamship Company Limited v. Shuttleworth and Co.... 48 4. Appeal-Costs-Judgment afirmed for different reasons. In a damage action where the judgment of the court below was affirmed, but for reasons other than those given by the judge below, the Court of Appeal ordered each party to pay his own costs. (Ct. of App.) The Dunelm......

301

5. Appeal Withdrawal of notice-Effect on crossappeal-R. S. C., Order LVIII., r. 6.—Where an appellant withdraws his appeal after the respondent has given notice of motion by way of crossappeal under Order LVIII., r. 6, should the respondent, determine to continue with his cross-appeal, his cross-notice will be treated as a substantive notice of appeal, in which case the original appellant may give a cross-notice of appeal that he intends to bring forward the subject-matter of his original appeal. (Ct. of App.) The Beeswing 335 6. Appeal from County Court-Time for-County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868, s. 27County Courts Act 1875-The power conferred by sect. 27 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 to extend the time within which an instrument of appeal may be lodged, provided sufficient cause be shown, is not altered or curtailed by sect. 6 of the County Courts Act 1875, this latter section merely providing an alternative mode of appeal. (Adm.) The Humber.. 7. Arrest by telegram-Issue of warrant-Removal from custody of Custom House officer-Contempt of court-R. S. C., Order IX., r. 12.-It having been the practice of the Admiralty Court and of the Admiralty Division to give directions by telegraph to the officers of customs to arrest a ship immediately on the issue of the warrant and before the warrant itself can have reached the officer, such arrest is valid, and if the owner or master remove her out of the jurisdiction after the officer of customs has taken possession of her, he is guilty of contempt of court, notwithstanding the provisions of Order IX., r. 12, as to the mode in which service of the warrant is to be effected. (Adm. Div.) The Seraglio

8. Collision-Damage to ship and cargo-Action by ship discontinued by consent-Ships held both to blame in cargo action-Limitation proceedingsRight of ship to claim.-Owners of ship and owners of cargo laden on board of her respectively instituted actions in rem against another ship for damage by collision. In the ship action the following agreement was signed by the parties: "We hereby consent to this action being discontinued without costs on the ground of inevitable accident," and the registrar made an order thereon discontinuing the action. In the cargo action both ships were held to blame, and the defendants therein obtained a decree limiting their liability. The plaintiffs in the ship action then obtained an order from the judge rescinding the order of discontinuance, and claimed against the fund in the limitation action. Held, that the agreement and consent order amounted to a mere discontinuance of the action, and not to a release

181

421

..page 573, 594

of all rights possessed by the parties thereto against each other, and that, therefore, the plaintiffs in the ship action were entitled to claim against the fund. (Ct. of App., affirming the Adm. Div.) Ardandhu...... 9. Collision-Loss of ship and cargo-Action by ship dismissed by consent-Ships held both to blame in cargo action-Limitation proceedings-Right of ship to claim.-Where owners of ship and owners of the cargo laden on board of her respectively institute actions against another ship for damage by collision, and in the ship action judgment is, by the consent of the parties, given, dismissing the action, but in the cargo action both ships are held to blame, and subsequently the defendants instituted an action for limitation of liability, the judgment in the ship action cannot be set aside by an order of the registrar in the absence of the plaintiffs in the cargo action, so as to enable the plaintiffs in the ship action to claim in the limitation action. Semble, the judgment in the ship action could only be set aside by the court itself upon the whole of the facts and the parties affected being brought before it; and quare whether any such order ought to be made. (Ct. of App.) The Bellcairn....

10. Commission on bail-Costs-Damages-Discon tinuance. A successful defendant in an action in rem, where the action is decided in his favour or discontinued, cannot recover as costs the commission paid by him for bail to release his ship from arrest, though he may in some instances, where the arrest is made malâ fide or with gross negligence, recover it as damages. (Adm.) The Numida; The Collingrove

503

483

582

11. Costs-Action without authority-Knowledge of proceedings-Setting aside.-Where a shipowner applied to the court to set aside an order condemning him in the costs of unsuccessful legal proceedings taken in his behalf by the managing owner, on the ground that the proceedings had been instituted without his knowledge, consent, or ratification, and that the first intimation he had of the proceedings was a notice received by him about a month previous to the present application condemning him in the costs of such proceedings. the Court refused to grant the application, as it did not appear that the applicant, though he had no knowledge of the institution of, was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings, and because he had not at once applied to the court on becoming aware of the proceedings, instead of delaying to take any steps for over a month. (Adm. Div.) The Bellcairn 12. Costs Counsel's fees-Collision - Registrar's discretion. In any action for damage by collision where, the damage to one vessel amounting to 20,000l., and to the other vessel to 2000l., three counsel were instructed on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the fees marked on their briefs were respectively seventy-five guineas, fifty guineas,and thirty guineas, and the registrar, on taxation, reduced these fees to sixty guineas, forty guineas, and twenty-seven guineas; the Court, on appeal from the taxation, allowed the original fees, holding that they were proper fees in a case of that magnitude. (Adm. Div.) The City of Lucknow 340 13. Costs-Detention of witnesses.-Semble, the cost of detaining witnesses on shore may be allowed, although such witnesses are not called at the trial. This is a matter in the discretion of the registrar. (Adm. Div.) The City of Lucknow 14. Costs-Marshal's fees-Sale of ship-Mortgagees intervening Necessaries action.-Where mortgagees intervened in a necessaries action which was discontinued by the plaintiff before coming to

340

15. Costs-Printed evidence for use in court-Collision-R. S. C., Order LXVI., r. 7, and Appendix N.-In consequence of the negligent navigation of the M. the steamship P. M. came into collision with the M. and with the D. In a damage action instituted by the owners of the P. M. against the M., the plaintiffs were successful. In a damage action, instituted by the owners of the D. against the M. to recover damages arising out of the collision between the D. and the P. M., the plaintiffs were successful. In this latter action, by agreement between the parties, the evidence in the first action, which had been printed in the form of a record for the purposes of appeal, was admitted, and was supplied to the plaintiffs by the owners of the P. M., the defendants refusing to provide them with it. The registrar, on taxation, allowed the plaintiffs, the owners of the D., the amount paid by them to the owners of the P. M. for the printed evidence, and 3d. per folio for this printed evidence provided for the use of counsel in court in accordance with the terms of Appendix N. of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1883. On objection to the registrar's taxation the Court refused to disallow the 3d. per folio. (Adm. Div.) The Mammoth ...... 289 16. Costs-Several claims-Ship sold in one action -Right to costs of sale.-Where, owing to the proceedings of one of several claimants against a ship, she is sold and the proceeds paid into court, so as to be available for all the claims, the party at whose instigation the ship is sold, though his claim is postponed after the others, is entitled to his costs up to and inclusive of the sale. (Adm.) The Immacolata Concezione

17. Costs Three Counsel-Collision action-Registrar's discretion.-In a collision action where the trial promised to be protracted, and the damage done exceeded 2000l., the Court refused to interfere with the registrar's discretion in allowing the costs of three counsel. (Adm. Div.) The Mammoth.....

18. Counter-claim-Cross action-Admiralty Court Act 1861, s. 34.-The words "cross-action" in sect. 34 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 cover a counter-claim, and the court will stay a collision action till security is given for a counter-claim when covered by that section. (Ct. of App.) The Newbattle

19. Court of Appeal-Equal division-Decision not binding. Although, in consequence of the Court of Appeal being equally divided in opinion, the decision of the court below stands, yet the Court of Appeal is not bound thereby on a subsequent occasion, though semble (per Brett, M.R.) it is otherwise in the case of the House of Lords. (Ct. of App.) The Vera Cruz

20. Default proceedings-Action in rem-Sale of foreign ship-Necessary affidavit.-The court will not order the sale of a foreign ship in a default action in rem merely on the affidavit to lead the warrant and the report of the marshal alleging that it is desirable the ship should be sold, but it further requires an affidavit verifying the cause of action and stating that no appearance has been entered on behalf of the ship. (Adm. Div.) The Hercules

21. Discovery-Security for costs-R. S. C., Order XXXI., rr. 25, 26.-The court or a judge is not

208

289

356

270

545