One the 25th June last Mr. Justice Butt for salvage services rendered by the Ocean we judgment in a somewhat peculiar suit
Ca. 8.8, Achilles, her master, and afew, to the Luertes, (s), a vessel belonging to the same company, and to the cargo on board, It appeared that the Luertes had broken down in the course of a voyage from Shanghai to Amsterdam, She was laden with a cargo of tobacco and other goods, The Achilles fell in with her, and towed her a distance of some 700 or more miles Colombo. The salvage service was one rendered in fine weather; there was no danger, 80 far as could be made out, to those engaged in rendering it. Neither was there any immediate danger to the salved vessel or the ca on board her, but had she deen left to herown resources, serious danger might have supervened both to the vessel and cargo. The value of the salved cargo, that portion which was sued was £116,000. His Lordship in giving judgment said When worked out, the defence can only resolve itself into this: You contracted to convey the cargo, which you are now suing, to its port of destination. Your vessel broke down and you, therefore, failed to fulfil your contract, and you cannot recover for that failure, because, having failed to fulfil your contract, if in consequence of that you recover salvage from the owners of the cargo, they would immediately have an action against you for breach of contract. 'Therefore you are debarred from recovering in this suit.' The whole thing, therefore, depends upon this: Have the plaintifis, the owners of the Achilles and the Luertes, being guilty of a breach of contract for which they would be liable to the owners of the cargo on board the Laertes. At the commencement of every voyage of this sort, there is an implied warranty that the ship is seaworthy. But the flaw which led to the break-down existed when the Laertes started, and she was, therefore not seaworthy for the voyage. If the implied warranty existed, or was not limited by the contracts in the bills of lading, then the owners of the Laertes, who are identical with the owners of the Achilles, could not sue as salvors. But the cargo in question was shipped under three different bills of lading."
His Lordship then proceeded to give the text of the bills of lading and the arguments thereupon by the Counsel for the defence, and said 'TI find as a fact that the ship was seaworthy so far as ordinary care could make her so.'" That is with reference to the first bill of nding. Iam of opinion that the vessel was seaworthy so far as due care in the appointment and sclection of agents, superintendents, pilots, masters, officers, engineers, and crew could ensure it With reference to the third Dill of Inding, I find that the accident occurred from 'a latent defect in her machinery existing at the time of shipment, though all reasonable means had been' taken to secure efficiency.' Havin found that these clauses limit the warranty of seaworthiness, I must come to the conclusion that there is no reason why the plaintiffs in this ease should not recover salvage from the owners of the Doard the Laertes. I shall, conside: very large value (116,000) and the size of both ships, make an award of 1,200/—50! to the master, 251 to the crew, and the rest to the owners,"
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.