Tug-Boat

In the towing of vessels without motive power, is regarded as the dominant mind or will of the adventure. The details of immediate navigation, with reference to approaching vessels, must be left to a great extent to those on board of her. And they must use at least reasonable and ordinary care toward the tows in their charge.* 1 See Eousillon v. Rousillon, L. K., 14 C. D. 351 (1880); Printing, &c. Co.u Sampson, L. R., 19 Eq. C. 462(1875); Diamond Match Co. v. Eoeber, 106 N. Y. 473 (18S7). In Wickens v. Evans, 3 Y. & J. 318 (Exch. E., 1829), an agreement between manufacturers of trunks for a division of territory, and for non-interference, was upheld. In Collins v. I^ocke, L. E., 4 Ap. C. 074 (1879), an agreement to parcel out the stevedoring business of a port, and to prevent competition, at least among the contracting parties, was also held to be valid. In Mogul Steamship Co. v. Mc Gregor, L. R, 21 Q. B. D. 544 (1888), it was held that a number of associated owners of vessels could lawfully offer rebates to dealers in China who would ship teas to Europe by vessels controlled by the association, the object being, not to ruin the trade of rival ship-owners, but to confine the^ transportation of teas to vessels belonging to the association. In Central Shade-Roller Co. </. Cushman, 143 Mass. 364 (1877), the court sustained, as not in restraint of trade nor against public policy, a combination between the manufacturers of a patented article to maintain uniform prices. See generally, as to combinations designed to destroy competition, 20 Am. Law Eev. 195-216 (1886), cases. 2 Compare People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 398-99 (1888), cases; Matter of Jacobs, 98 id. 106 (1885). s 3 Political Science Quarterly, 592-632 (Dec. 1888), by Theodore W. Dwight. lb. 611, is a copy of the " trust deed " of the Sugar Eeflneries Company, from the report of the Commission relative to Trusts in New York, made March 6, 1888. On the Economic and So- AUhougli a tug may not be a common carrier, liable. as an insurer, nor required to use the highest degree of care and sk Ul, she is bound to use reasonable care and skill, and to know the condition of the bottom and the depth of the water of the river she. may be navigating. I The rule that the tug is alone responsible for damages upon a collision between her tow and other vessels is applicable only when the tow is wholly under the control of the tug.'^ The English authorities hold that a ship in tow of a tug is liable for injury to third perso/is though the direct fault may be that of the tug; the -^hip and her owners being treated a^ principals. In this countiy, under the law of principal and agent, the tug is held to be the sole principal, ^nd the ship exempted, when her navigation is, by contract, exclusively in charge of the tug.' See Tow-boat; Collision, 2; Yoyage.