Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/136

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES diate port the master retains the same right given to him by an ordinary disaster at sea, unattended by abandonment, to resume possession of the ship and cargo, subject to a claim of the salvors, and to carry the cargo forward to its destination, provided he act with promptness and before any intervening rights have accrued. SHIPPING. (Bill of lading, Barter Act. ) Eng. — In Compania Naviera Vascongada v. Churchill and Sim-Compania Naviera Vascongada v. Burton & Co., 1905, Nov. 23, 22 T. L. R., 85, action was brought to recover freight on some timber shipped, according to the bill of lading, from Port Arthur, Texas, to London. The bills of lading stated that the timber was " shipped in good order and condition." It also stated that the " quality and measure " were unknown and that it was to be subject to the provisions of the Harter Act of Congress, 1893. The timber on arrival was found seriously damaged, and had, in fact, been noticed as so damaged when it was shipped, and the action was brought by the endorsers of the bills of lading against the ship-owners, whose liability in such case had never yet been settled. The judgment held that the statement that the timber was shipped in good order and condition was not neutralized by the statement that the " quality and measure " were unknown, and that the con tract was one to .deliver the goods in the same condition in which, they were shipped coupled with an acknowledgment that the condition at the time of shipment was good. It was also held that whether the Harter Act was incorporated or not in the bill of lading, the master had authority to "state in the bill of lading that the goods had been shipped in good order and condition and that this statement bound the ship-owners, who were thereby estopped as to the endorsees of the bill of lading, from denying that the goods were in good condition at the time of shipment, and that they must therefore pay the damage which was found on delivery to be done to the goods. It was also held that section 4 of the Harter Act, when it provided that the statement of the captain as to the condition of the goods was to be prima facie evidence, did not prevent any estoppel because the act did not provide that the evidence was only to be prima facie, and it was consistent with the section that, upon something further happen ing, the evidence might become conclusive. It also pointed out that the object of these words was to preserve the doctrine of Grant v. Nor way, 10 C. B. 665, a case which since the Harter act, was recognized as law in America. The fol lowing cases were cited during the Grant v. Nor way (10 C. B. 665; 20 L. J., C. P. 93); Cox v. Bruce (18, Q. B. D., i47;'5<5 L. J., Q. B., 121);

Howard v. Tucker (i B. & Ad., 712); Sears v. Wingate (85, Mass. Rep. 103); Seduc v. Ward (20 Q. B. D. 475); The Prosperino Palasso (29 L. J. 622); The Taa (32, L. T. 541); Craig v. Dclary (6, Rettic, i, 269). TORTS. (Boycott — Injunction.) U. S. C. C. for N. D. of Cal. — Loewe v. California State Fed eration of Labor, 139 Federal Reporter, 71, con tains a holding upon a subject of ever-growing importance, which though in line with a number of former adjudications, presents the subject in volved very clearly. It is there decided that the fact that the ultimate object of a combination is to benefit the parties thereto in their business or property which is in itself lawful, will not pre vent such combination from being an unlawful conspiracy where its immediate object and pur pose is to injure or destroy the business of another by means of a boycott, nor is such combination rendered lawful because the acts contemplated and done pursuant thereto might lawfully be done by an individual acting for himself, in consonance with this principle it is held that the concerted action of labor organizations, state and local, in declaring a boycott against the business and goods of a manufacturer of another State, to compel him to unionize his business as demanded by an affiliated organization, followed by the sending out of circulars and agents announcing such action, and that dealers buying or selling the goods of the manufacturer would also be treated as unfair, and by attempts by other means to interfere with and destroy his business consti tutes an unlawful conspiracy which the courts will enjoin. TORTS.

(Imputed

Negligence.)

Conn. —

Willmot v. McPadden,6i Atlantic Reporter, 1069, holds that negligence of a parent cannot, by the doctrine of imputation, be made a defense to an action by the administrator of an infant for dam ages for negligence causing the infant's death. This holding is based upon Connecticut Public Acts 1903, p. 149, c. 193, authorizing the bring ing of an action by an administrator on a cause of action for injuries which accrued to his intes tate, and entitling the administrator to recover damages on the same grounds and measured by the same rule as if the action had been brought by the injured party in his lifetime. An infant, as well as an adult may, says the court, recover damages for injuries caused by the negligence of another. In such a suit the plaintiff must prove that his own fault did not concur with the fault of the defendant as a proximate cause of the in jury, but the fact that the fault of the third party may have concurred with that of defendant in