The Penn's Grove record., 1883-09-15
Recent Legal Decisions.

schooner 10 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 a steamship and was sunk /;
the collision resulted from the sebo q,
er's helm being put to starboard, but
not from any negligence on her part,
aud 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,
OH 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.. j. in the
judgment, said SIN "a case like this
it was only necessary for the plaintiffs
to prove non-deliyery of the cargo, and
the defendants could only answer in
one way-shewingtha this non-delivery
was caused by something excepted in
the bill of lading. This bill of lading
excepted only the perils of the STA
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 il 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 a collision between a 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
there was nc negligence on board of
the schooner, there must have been
some on board of the steamship, and it
is clear that a collision which happens,
in consequence of negligence on either
vessel cannot be said to be "a peril of the
sea- within the meaning of these words
in a bill of lading."
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF BOARD
"A MAJoRITY.-A public officer was
removed by a vote of two members of
the proper Board, one voting in the
negative. The Board was composed
of five member, but two of them had
been prohibited in certain proceedings
at law from acting in the meetings of
the Board. The officer argued that
the power of removal could not he ex-
erted by a majority OF the bare quorum,
the quorum of this being a majority Of
the members. The Supreme Court of
California, in affirming the judgment
of removal in this case-the people eX
rel. Flint VS.. MISUNDERSTANDING
Judge Sharpstein, said "a quorum
properly constituted has the full pcweis
of a Board, and a majority vote thereof
will validate its acts. When an as
sembly is duly met it is clear law that
the corporate act may he done by a
majority of those who have once req :
larly constituted tie meeting. We are
not aware OF any case in which the
contrary has been held, and must re-
gard the law as well settled that in Il
case like this the action of a quorum is
the action of the Board, and that a
majority of the quorum present could
do any act which a majority of the
Board, if present, might do"
Observation-Disclosures APPEAL.
Certain person, who composed the
Branch Pilots" Association of New
Orleans, got an injunction to restrain
III of its members from plotting yes
sells in or out of that port independently
of the association, and from violating
his obligations as a member whilst Il
suit against him to compel him to per-
form his duties was pending. This
preliminary injunction was dissolved
ON the motion of the defendant, it APP
pearing, by the complaint in the case -
Leirne VS.. Michell-in the course of the
defendant, if persisted in, would cause
the association an ~irreparable injury,
exceeding the sum of $4,000. An APP
peal was taken to the Supreme Court
of Louisiana, where the dissolution of
the injunction was sustained. Judge
Pocbe, in the opinion, said /; ut strikes
us that, tested by the allegations OF the
complaint, the damages suffered by the
plaintiffs can be measured in money,
and are therefore not irreparable, and
an injunction cannot be sustained
where a compensation in money will
be sufficient. By the very means Of
observation through which plain
| tiffs have detected and are able to
| enumerate the acts of defendant in
boarding vessels and plotting them
| they are afforded an efficient mode of
computing the damages which defen-
I dant will cause TO the association pend
ing the litigation which will finally
adjust the conflicting claims of all
parties to the suit. Plaintiffs counsel
bitterly denounces the jur sprudenc
which has 80 signally misconstrued a
provision of law, and thus enables an
enjoined defendant. by means of an
insignificant bond of $500, to continue
in the performance of his illegal acts,
thus professionally chastising crime
and wrong In advancing these views,
and in advocating a construction under
which a defendant, in such an injunc-
ton, would be deprived of the right OF
dissolving the same on a bond, counse.
has lost sight of the fact that on fur,
nishing an Insignificant bond of $500
these plaintiffs have suddenly, without
warning, and for an indefinite time
paralyzed and checked the defendant