Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/326

.

Admiralty.

104 Sect.

1.

Actions in rem.

defendant's vessel is pronounced alone to blame in an action of damage, the defendant and his bail or his vessel left under arrest,, Similarly, as the case may be, is condemned in the whole costs. where there is a- counterclaim in an action of damage and the plaintiff's vessel is found to be alone to blame, the plaintiffs and their bail have to bear the whole costs of the action. In actions of damage where neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants admit negligence and both vessels are found to blame, no order as to costs but where is made, each party being left to bear his own costs (s) in an action of damage one party admits in pleading that his vessel is to blame, and the other party, notwithstanding this admission^ seeks to obtain a decree that his opponent's vessel is solely to blame, the Court, if it finds both vessels to blame, does not follow the above rule of " no costs," but holds that the party so admitting

liability is entitled to his costs

{t),

Case of inevitable accident.

217. Where the defendant sets up the defence of inevitable accident and succeeds upon it, the action may be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff (a).

Compulsory

218. In actions of damage, if the defendants raise a defence both on the merits and on the ground of compulsory pilotage without setting up a counterclaim (b), and the suit is dismissed by reason of the defence of compulsory pilotage having succeeded, no costs are given on either side (c) but where the sole issue to be decided is compulsory pilotage, the party succeeding on that issue is usually

pilotage.



held entitled to the costs of the action {d). Where a collision took place between a barge towed by a steamtug and a steamship, and the owners of the barge, for the purpose of recovering the damages they had sustained in the collision, brought an action of damage in rem against the steamship, and an action in perso7ia7n against the owners of the steam-tug, and the Court, on the actions coming on to be tried together, found the steamship alone to blame for the collision, the owners of the steamship, who had intervened as defendants in the action in rem, and sought to throw the blame of the collision on the owners of the steam-tug, were condemned not only in the costs of the plaintiffs, but also in the costs of the steam-tug (c) Salvage cases.

219. The rules as to the usual incidence of costs where a tender act in Court is made in an action of salvage have already been

by

(s) The Hector (1883), 8 P. D. 218; The. Beryl (1884), 9 P. D. 137, at p. 144; The Harvest Home, [1905] P. 177. (t) The General Gordon (1890), 6 Asp. M. L. C. 533. See also The London,

[1905] P. 152. (a) The MonJcseaton (1889), 14 P. D. 51. [h] If a counterclaim is set up and fails, the defendant may be condemned in tbe costs of the counterclaim, see The Mercedes de Larrinaga, [1904] P. 215, at

p. 235.

The Baoiz (1877), 3 Asp. M. L. C.-477 The Mercedes de Larrinaga, supra, The Winestead, [1895] P. 170, at p. 175. (d) The Oakfield (1888), 11 P. D. 34, 37. (e) The River Lagan (1888), 57 L. J. (adm.) 28 and see The Mystery, [1902] P. 115, where a similar order was made by the Divisional Court in a county (c)



at p. 235;



court appeal.