The Delaware ledger., 1883-09-15
Recent Legal Decisions,

| fREIGHT-"PERILS OF THE oEA.
| A. & Co. owned a cargo of barley in
France, and shipped it by B. q Co.'s
schooner to London, and the bill Of
lading provided for save delivery,
''the perils of the sea- excepted. The
vessel, in sailing up the Thames, col
lided with steamship and was sunk
the collision resulted from the schoon-
er's helm being put to starboard, but
not from any negligence on her part, /
and there was no finding whether or
not the steamship was at fault. An
action was brought for the loss of
the barley, and the plaintiffs recovered,
on the ground that the collision was
one of ''the perils Of the sea-" An |
appeal was taken to the Court of APP |
peal, where the judgment in the case
Woody VS.. Michell-was given in favor |
of the defendants. Brett, L. ]. in the |
judgment, said {: sin a case like this
it was only necessary for the plaintiffs |
to prove non-delivery of the cargo, and
the defendants could only answer in
one way-shewing that this non-deliyery
was caused by something excepted in
the bill of lading. This bill of lading
excepted only the perils of the sea.
But unless a collision occurs without
the fault of either vessel it is not "a
peril of the sea- within the meaning of
these words in a English bill of lading.
On the finding of the jury in this case
the defendants must fail, as they have
] only found that the schooner was not
, negligent. Now, the moment it appears
there was collision between sailing
vessel and a steamship the Court is
bound to take note of the rule that it is
the duty of the sailing vessel to keep
/ her course and the duty of the steam
ship to keep out of her way. Even if
9 there was no negligence on board of
: the schooner, there must have been
; some on board of the steamship, and it
= is clear that collision which happens,
q in consequence of negligence on either
. vessel cannot be said to be "a peril of the
b, sea- within the meaning of these words
d in bill of lading." BE-
e CoRPoRATIoN-QUo OF BOARD
l. "A MAJoRITY.-A public officer was
1t removed by vote of two members of
1t the proper Board, one voting in the
d negative. The Board was composed
of five member, but two Of them had
1t been prohibited in certain proceedings
y at law from acting in the meetings OF
the Board. The officer argued that
t, the power of removal could not be ex-
T, erted by majority OF the bare quorum,
ne the quorum of this being majority Of
Id the members. The Supreme Court Of
ne California, in affirming the judgment
w of removal in this case-the people e1
lg rel. Flint VS.. Warrington-througl
al. Judge Sharpstein, said ga quorum
properly constituted has the full power
'te of Board, and majority vote thereo
= will validate its acts. When an as
to sembly is duly met it is clear law tina
the corporate act may be done by
majority of those who have once regr
OF larly constituted the meeting. We ar
W. not aware OF any case in which tn
nd contrary has been held, and must re
Tar gard the law as well settled that in
lad case like this the action of quorum
ing the action of the Board, and that
he majority of the quorum present coul
the do any act which a majority Of IL
Board, if present, might do"
out
itb INJUNCTIoN-DAMA APPEAL
Certain person, who composed Il
low ssBranch Pilots I" Association of Ne
YOU Orleans, got an injunction to restra
one of its members from plotting We
eal- sells in or out of that port independent
of the association, and from violatil
not his obligations as a member whilst
a suit against him to compel him to pr
he form his duties was pending. III
her preliminary injunction was dissolv
on the motion of the defendant, it
me. pearing, by the complaint in the case
Leirne VS.. Michell-in the course of
flied defendant, if per sisted in, would cal
his the association an irreparable injul
esist exceeding the sum of $4,000. An
z to peal was taken to the Supreme Coz
of Louisiana, where the dissolution
-oice the injunction was sustained. Jut
you Poche, in the opinion, said ut stri
very us that, tested by the allegations OF
complaint, the damages suffered by
,ock- plaintiffs can be measured in mon
and are therefore not irreparable,
edly, an injunction cannot be sustai
mar where compensation in money
be sufficient. By the very means
as a observation through which pl
% her tiffs have detected and are able
as so enumerate the acts of defendant
vas to boarding vessels and plotting Il
they are afforded an efficient mod
yered, computing the damages which de
love, dant will cause to the association p
heart ing the litigation which will fiji
can adjust the cennlctlng claihs oi
ife to parties to the suit. Plaintiffs col
bitterly denounces the jurispru
which mas so signally misconstru
provision of law, and thus enable
ay ni0 enjoined defendant. by means o.
., ?. ,o insignificant bond of $500, to com
e'''i"s in the performance of his illegal
thus professionally chastising {
nd he and wrong In advancing these V
spulses and in advocating construction !
sweet which defendant, in such an in
ar own | +;op xvould he denr;yed of the ril