Decisions announced without Opinions.

UNITED STATES, and No. 682. LAVIN v. UNITED STATES. Third Circuit. Denied May 28, 1901. Mr. Francis B. Bracken for petitioners. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Beck opposing.

No. 694. COUNTY OF HUGHES V. LIVINGSTON. Eighth Circuit. Denied May 28, 1901. Mr. Thompson P. Estes for the petitioner. Mr. Edward C. Stringer opposing.

No. 697. BRITISH AND FOREIGN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY V. INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION COMPANY; No. 698. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. SAME; No. 699. THAMES AND MERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY V. SAME; and No. 700. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SAME. Second Circuit. Denied May 28, 1901. Mr. Treadwell Cleveland for petitioners in Nos. 697, 698 and 699, and Mr. Lewis Cass Ledyard for petitioners in No. 700. Mr. Henry Galbraith Ward opposing.

No. 703. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA v. UNION NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA. Eighth Circuit. Denied May 28, 1901. Mr. John L. Kennedy for petitioner.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTO

BER TERM, 1900.

ORDER AS TO HAWAII.

It is now here ordered by the Court that the Territory of Hawaii be, and it is hereby, assigned to the Ninth Judicial Circuit under Section fifteen of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891.

VOL. CLXXXI-40

April 15, 1901. (625)

INDEX.

ADMIRALTY.

1. The Harter act, so-called, does not relieve the ship owner from liability
for damages caused by the unseaworthy condition of his ship at the
commencement of her voyage. International Navigation Co. v. Farr &
Bailey Manufacturing Co., 218.

2. Nor is the ship owner exempted from liability under that act, "for dam-
age or loss resulting from faults or errors of navigation, or in the man-
agement of said vessel,” unless it appears that she was actually sea-
worthy when she started or that the owner had exercised due diligence
to make her so in all respects. Ib.

3. The mere fact that the owner provides a vessel properly constructed
and equipped is not conclusive that the owner has exercised due dili-
gence within the meaning of the act, for the diligence required is dili-
gence on the part of all the owner's servants in the use of the equip-
ment before the commencement of the voyage and until it has actually`
commenced; and the law recognizes no distinction founded on the
character of the servants employed to accomplish that result. Ib.
4. Whether a ship is reasonably fit to carry her cargo is a question to be
determined on all the facts and circumstances, and the difference in
the facts of this case from those in The Silvia, 171 U. S. 462, was such
that the Court of Appeals was at liberty to reach a different result. Ib.
5. In a suit for a collision against a vessel navigated by charterers, it is
competent for the court to entertain a petition by the general owners
that the charterers be required to appear and show cause why they
should not be held primarily liable for the damages occasioned by the
collision. The Barnstable, 464.

6. A ship is liable in rem for damages occasioned by a collision through
the negligence of the charterers having her in possession and navigat-
ing her. Ib.

7. If a stipulation in the charter party that "the owners shall pay for the in-
surance on the vessel" imposes any other duty on the owner than that
of paying the premiums, it goes no farther than to render them liable
for losses covered by an ordinary policy of insurance against perils of
the sea; and as such policy would not cover damage done to another
vessel by a collision with the vessel insured, the primary liability for
such damage rests upon the charterers, who undertook to navigate the
vessel with their own officers and crew, and not upon the owners.
Ib.

ALIMONY.

1. A decree of the highest court of a State, giving full faith and credit to a

(627)